PRIVATE BUSINESS

Hbos Group Reorganisation Bill

Order for Third Reading read. To be read the Third time on Tuesday 28 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Local Transport Monopolies

Andrew Turner: What discussions he has had with the Office of Fair Trading on local transport monopolies.

Alistair Darling: My officials meet regularly with the Office of Fair Trading. It is for the competition authorities to consider whether a local monopoly is abusing its position and having a detrimental effect on consumers.

Andrew Turner: Wightlink, which enjoys what the OFT calls a dominant position in the cross-Solent ferry market, has just been sold for £230 million, which can only be recouped from its customers. Fares have increased significantly, potentially damaging the local economy and causing hardship particularly to those who have to travel because of a need for health care. Does the Secretary of State agree that instead of launching investigations only after the ill effects become apparent, the OFT should keep local transport monopolies under review and ensure a fair deal for local communities?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised his concern directly with my Department. I appreciate the problem that he sets out. I think that the competition authorities last looked at the position on the Isle of Wight in 1995, although there was a further review in 2000. The test is not whether there is a monopoly but whether those involved are abusing the position. As I understand it, there are three operators on the Isle of Wight, two of which are bigger than the other one. If the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else on the Isle of Wight, has a particular problem, he might want to raise it with the OFT.
	On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I am not sure that I would want the Competition Commission to keep a constant watch over everything that might constitute a monopoly. I imagine that its resources would have to be significantly increased were that to happen. The best thing to do in relation to this particular case, if the hon. Gentleman is so minded, is to raise it with the authorities.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that open access arrangements on our railways can have a very positive effect? Does he particularly welcome the competition that will be created by the proposed link between Wrexham and London, which will compete with the Virgin railway service that currently operates?

Alistair Darling: Competition can be beneficial. However, it is also important to ensure that there is sufficient capacity on the railway lines to allow for additional services to run, whether between Wrexham and London or anywhere else. The other relevant factor that must be considered is the effect that it has on the overall finances of the railways.

Air Travel

Stephen Crabb: What his policy is on the extent to which demand for air travel should be met by increased spending on infrastructure.

Alistair Darling: Investment in airport infrastructure is essential in order to deliver the objectives of the White Paper that I published in 2003 and to ensure the international competitiveness of the UK. Perhaps I should draw the House's attention to a statement that I made this morning on the Government's response to the Civil Aviation Authority's price control review consultation, which emphasises the importance of investment in order to deliver the objectives of the Government's White Paper. I also draw the House's attention to the recent statement by the CAA, which stressed the importance of airport operators maintaining a sufficient credit rating to be able to fund future investment.

Stephen Crabb: Given that the White Paper forecasts that demand for airport capacity in the south-east region will reach £300 million passengers by 2030—more than double today's level—and that existing airport capacity serving this market is already, in effect, fully utilised, how confident is the Secretary of State that current plans for the provision of additional runway capacity in the south-east will match this demand in a timely and appropriate manner? What does he think will be the consequences for the UK if we fail to do so?

Alistair Darling: I am in no doubt that if we do not implement the proposals set out in the White Paper of three years ago, that will have adverse consequences for the United Kingdom. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman's Front Benchers seem to be having doubts about the position that I set out in 2003, which strikes a reasonable balance between the need to meet some of the increased demand that will come in the south-east and elsewhere and the need to meet our environmental obligations.
	As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the problem that we now face is that Heathrow is full for most of the day, Gatwick is fairly well used, and growth at Stansted has been dramatic over the past few years. If we get ourselves into a position whereby we do not take decisions, which is essentially what happened in this country for nearly 20 years, or do not accept that some capacity is needed to meet all the demand that might arise, the position of the UK generally will be very bad. That is why I believe that what I set out in the White Paper in 2003 was right then and remains right now.

Brian H Donohoe: On the specific problem of airports, does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the BAA's virtual stranglehold in the south-east and throughout the country, it is now time to do something? In addition, given the speculation about that company, does he believe that it is time to consider breaking it up to allow development elsewhere, by airports such as Prestwick in my constituency, so that they can fight on a level playing field rather than suffer strangulation by the BAA?

Alistair Darling: I am not sure whether I agree with my hon. Friend. First, it is up to the competition authorities to decide whether an abuse of the monopoly position has occurred and, if so, to make recommendations. It is not open to the Government to expropriate property from a private company—that is not the right approach.
	The BAA is currently committed to substantial investment in not only the London airports but airports in Scotland, as my hon. Friend knows. However, the competition position is for the Competition Commission to determine, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. It is important that investment is maintained in airports, whether by BAA or anyone else. No Government can be indifferent to that.

Julian Brazier: The Government have committed themselves to an extra runway at Stansted, despite its failure to attract long-haul operators. Who will pay for upgrading the railway line, which, as the Secretary of State knows, is getting slower through the extra stops? Who will pay for the water that is needed at a time of unprecedented water shortages in the area? Above all, who is responsible for joined-up government, covering every issue from skills shortages to housing shortages, which will arise as a consequence?

Alistair Darling: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's proposition that an airport is not an airport unless is caters for long-haul flights. Stansted has many short-haul flights, and many low-cost airlines fly into it. Millions of people every year fly from Stansted to different parts of Europe. It is a viable airport. The test is not whether it has long-haul flights.
	As I have said on several occasions, the White Paper strikes the right balance on the need to increase capacity, especially in the south-east. If we do not do that, the implications for this country are serious, not only in loss of business to other parts of the world but in relation to the country's economic health.
	If an application to build a second runway is granted, the developer will be required to meet some of the additional costs for surface access. The Government have much responsibility for the general railway network and the line from Cambridge to Liverpool Street. That presents a problem for the hon. Gentleman. He cannot say that he favours more investment while signing up to a policy that means cuts in investment.

John MacDougall: Will my right hon. Friend continue to press the case for improved links between Fife and airports such as Edinburgh? Will he do what he can to encourage BAA to improve the links and make the necessary investment for better public access?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I will. The Scottish Executive propose a railway line from Fife as well as Edinburgh and Glasgow through Edinburgh airport, and BAA is fully involved in that. If that happened, it would provide fast links from all over Scotland to Edinburgh airport, which is one of the airports that the White Paper identifies as experiencing significant growth in the next 30 years.

Blackpool Trams

Ben Wallace: What discussions he has had with Blackpool council on investment in the town's trams.

Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any discussions with Blackpool council about investment in the trams. However, officials from the Department have had several meetings with the promoters, Blackpool and Lancashire councils, to discuss their proposals to upgrade the tramway.

Ben Wallace: Will the Under-Secretary set out a timetable for a decision on any request for extra investment? Will he study carefully any request to deregulate from the rail vehicle accessibility regime, which is imposed 100 per cent. on the Blackpool trams? If there is no deregulation, that could threaten their existence in the long run.

Derek Twigg: Blackpool has said that it needs £16 million over the next three years to keep the tramway running. This issue is being considered as part of the regional priorities exercise that we have carried out around the regions, including the north-west. Ministers are considering those priorities at the moment, and we will make an announcement in due course.

Joan Humble: Is my hon. Friend aware that Blackpool council had to undertake emergency repairs on the tram track in Fleetwood last year? The only answer to these problems is proper investment, because that tram track carries not only tourists visiting the area but local residents—my constituents—who travel to work between Blackpool and Fleetwood and who are getting increasingly anxious about the trams' future.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) have been great champions of, and advocates for, the trams in Blackpool. In fact, I recently responded to an Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South on the subject. I am aware of the importance that Blackpool places on the trams in regard to its economic regeneration. The matter is under consideration as part of the regional priorities exercise in the north-west, and we shall make an announcement on our decision in due course.

Rail Capacity (Chippenham/Paddington)

James Gray: What recent assessment he has made of the rail capacity available for trains from Chippenham to London Paddington.

Derek Twigg: The most recent assessment of the rail capacity available for trains from Chippenham to London Paddington was made in the Great Western main line route utilisation strategy, which was published in its final form by the Strategic Rail Authority in June 2005.

James Gray: That is an entirely factual response, but the truth that lies behind the Minister's answer is that substantial cuts have been made to rail services in the west country. In Chippenham, we have lost our early morning train to London, the 5 o'clock service. We have also lost any possible connection with Oxford, to which there used to be a direct line. We used to have a service via Didcot, but 18 fewer trains a day now stop at Didcot. We have also lost our west Wiltshire link to Waterloo. The truth is that deep and damaging cuts have been made to our rail services in Chippenham and across the west country, and that is directly attributable to this Government. Does the Minister not accept that, if he puts up the price of a return rail ticket from London to Chippenham to £100 and cuts the train services, people will get back into their cars?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman has spoken to me before about these concerns. A consultation exercise has taken place, and our officials will be talking to First Great Western about the results to see where we can make improvements. I must point out, however, that most people in the greater western area are either getting the same service or seeing an improvement in services.

Chris Grayling: Will the Minister confirm that the cutbacks to rail services in the Chippenham area, and in the west of England as a whole, were specified by his Department in the detailed documentation for the Great Western franchise?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman will know that we put part of the base case as part of the invitation to tender and the specification process. If representatives of First Great Western want to come to us with proposals for improvements in services that would not have an impact on the capacity of the rest of the line, we will listen to them and talk to them about that. The key issue here is that, apart from the fact that most people are experiencing the same or better services, there will be £200 million worth of investment going into trains and stations along the First Great Western route.

Chris Grayling: I think that that is an admission. Does the Minister realise the consequences for my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and other hon. Members of the Government's decisions to cut back services in many parts of the west country? Last week, I visited a rural station in Hampshire where the train used by local children to get to school is to be axed as a result of the specification that has come from the Minister's Department. How can he expect people to leave their cars at home and use public transport when his Department is taking decisions to cut their train services?

Derek Twigg: Let us be clear about this. We are investing £87 million a week in the railways, the number of rail passengers increased to 1 billion last year, and we now have the youngest rolling stock that we have had for years. In regard to the First Great Western franchise, let me repeat that we are investing £200 million in trains and stations, and most people will experience the same or better services. We shall listen to the results of the consultation, but the key issue is that the Government are investing in the railway—which is resulting in improving services and a growth in passenger numbers—unlike the Tories, who did not invest in the railway. We are now picking up the pieces after those decades of underinvestment.

Pensioner Travel

Lindsay Hoyle: What steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to enter into reciprocal agreements on free off-peak travel for pensioners.

Stephen Ladyman: We are keen for local authorities to work together to provide cross-boundary, county or region-wide schemes where that suits local circumstances. Local authorities will have the discretion to work together to provide cross-boundary travel, as they do at present, based on their judgment of local needs and their overall financial priorities.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no such agreements in Lancashire? At the moment, pensioners are able to travel free only within each small district, which goes against the ethos of the Government's provisions. It is wrong that people in Greater Manchester, London and every other major city will be able to travel free across several districts, while free travel will be available only within each district in Lancashire. That is unacceptable. It is not the way forward for pensioner travel. What can the Minister do to end the postcode lottery for pensioner travel in Lancashire to ensure that my pensioners get a fair deal, just like pensioners in the rest of the country?

Stephen Ladyman: I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge that the Government have done their part by making a substantial amount of money available for free travel for pensioners. Other counties have been able to reach agreements that have allowed cross-county travel to be provided. I hope that, even at this stage, Lancashire will try to find a way forward to offer the service that is being offered in many other counties.

Peter Bone: My constituency contains two major towns, Wellingborough and Rushden, but they fall into two different district council areas. When free off-peak travel for pensioners was announced, it was welcomed by local people, but they have found that it does not, in effect, apply to them, as they cannot use the No. 46 bus that links the two towns.

Stephen Ladyman: Once again, it is for the two boroughs to discuss how they can work together to provide that sort of service. At present, boroughs work together to make the half-fare concessionary services available. All we are doing is providing additional money so that they can provide free local services. It should not be beyond the wit of local councils to see whether there is a way forward through working together.

Clive Betts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the passenger transport authority in south Yorkshire is using the money that it is getting from central Government, together with the existing money that it is spending on its current discount scheme, to ensure that pensioners get free travel from not 9.30 but 9 o'clock, not merely on the bus but on the tram and train as well, and also on journeys between south Yorkshire and west Yorkshire and some journeys between Sheffield and Derbyshire? Is not that a good example of a Labour Government and Labour local authorities working together for the benefit of pensioners?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a good example of councils getting together to provide added benefits with the money from the Government. There is no reason why all those other Tory councils cannot do the same.

Alistair Carmichael: I take it from the Minister's answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) that the real answer is that the Government are taking no steps to   encourage reciprocal agreements between local authorities. Does not he accept that when many local authorities are struggling to meet the costs of funding concessionary travel, and having to cut existing, local, popular concessionary schemes, that will simply not be good enough?

Stephen Ladyman: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new portfolio, and I hope that he enjoys it very much. How can we, as he puts it, not be encouraging such schemes when we are putting £350 million into making the service available? If councils are not able to work together to make that into a reality, I suggest that people ask questions of those local councils. Such a substantial additional sum of money will provide free bus travel for pensioners all around the country, and he should welcome it as good news.

David Borrow: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), may I reiterate the problems experienced by Lancashire, with 12 district councils and the county council having to reach agreement? There are real problems, if those 13 councils do not reach agreement, about not having a scheme at all. Will the Minister be proactive in leading discussions with Lancashire councils on a way forward to ensure that my constituents can get to local hospitals and shopping centres without having to pay half-fare, which is the existing scheme?

Stephen Ladyman: I find it difficult to understand how the Government can be criticised for putting an extra £350 million into free travel for old people. It seems obvious that councils in Lancashire need to get together and come up with a solution that can meet local needs and the demands of my hon. Friend's constituents. If they are not prepared to do that, I suggest that he reminds people that local elections are coming up soon.

Rail Services (Greater London)

Justine Greening: If he will make a statement on the performance of rail services in Greater London.

Alistair Darling: The performance of rail services in Greater London continues to improve. In February 2006, which is the last period for which I have figures, punctuality on South West Trains, which serves the hon. Lady's constituency, stood at 93.5 per cent.

Justine Greening: One aspect of performance that is often overlooked, although it is very important to my constituents who use Putney main line station, is ticketing. Pre-paid Oyster cards are now used regularly by my constituents who take the tube, but many who begin their journeys at Putney main line station want to be able to use flexible tickets there as well. Can the Secretary of State say whether the Government intend the tender document for the South West Trains franchise, which is due to be renewed in February 2007, to mandate franchise bidders to offer pre-pay or flexible ticket systems?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady makes a good point. We want to ensure that Oyster cards—and the next generation of cards—are available not just in Greater London but in the rest of the country, so the invitation to tender, which we will publish shortly, will include that requirement.

Andrew Love: My right hon. Friend may know of the tragic accident that occurred in my constituency over the weekend, when two 16-year-olds were ploughed down by a train travelling at 80 mph. Rumours abound about why it happened, and obviously we must await the facts, but it is already clear that there were no lights or safety gates at the crossing, and that there was no warning sound when a train was approaching. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that there will be a proper inquiry, that a report with recommendations will follow, and that, while we wait for the recommendations, the crossing will be closed to ensure the safety of others who wish to cross the line?

Alistair Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the accident, and we must extend our sympathy to the families of the two young boys who lost their lives. I would, however, caution my hon. Friend and the House about reaching conclusions on what happened at this stage. An investigation is in progress, and it might be better to await its conclusions before drawing our own.
	This was a tragic accident and we must do our best to prevent such events, but, as the House will appreciate, railways are inherently dangerous places for people who go on to them. We need to find out how those young boys came to be on the line and what they were doing, and then draw our conclusions accordingly.

Light Rail/Trams (Funding)

Andrew Stunell: If he will make a statement on future funding of light rail and trams.

Derek Twigg: Trams can be very effective in areas with heavy traffic. We remain prepared to support trams where they are the right solution, but we must take account of the cost. In many cases a well-designed and promoted bus-based system is likely to provide a more cost-effective solution.

Andrew Stunell: The Minister and I share an interest in improved public transport in the north-west. Can he confirm that the south-east Manchester multi-modal study continues to be a priority for him and his Department, and that therefore the extension of the Metrolink tram to Manchester airport and Stockport town centre also remains a priority for him?

Derek Twigg: We are awaiting regional advice on the study, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, this year we devolved some decision-making on priorities to the regions. The regional priorities have been submitted to the Department, and we are considering the various schemes that have been suggested, including those from the north-west.

Andrew Gwynne: I acknowledge the Government's real commitment to the Manchester Metrolink, including the extension to Ashton-under-Lyne, which will go through my constituency. For the vast majority of people in Denton and Reddish, however, the bus will still be the main form of public transport. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with Stagecoach Manchester, particularly on the subject of tram-like buses?

Derek Twigg: I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents when it comes to improving transport. I have had no discussions with Stagecoach Manchester about buses, but as part of the overall public transport agenda we must try to find the best solution for each area. If possible that will include integration, whether it involves buses, trams or other forms of transport. I will try to find out more about what discussions have taken place, and then inform my hon. Friend.

Julie Kirkbride: Is any consideration being given to restoring the tram service to Birmingham? That would greatly improve congestion for those who go into the city every morning. Some of the routes for the tram service that was withdrawn still exist, and could be used for the new service.

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Lady probably knows, Centro has submitted a scheme. It is also one of the regions that have involved themselves in the transport innovation fund. We will decide on its proposals in due course, when we know the details.

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

Lynda Waltho: What plans he has to use high occupancy vehicle lanes to tackle congestion.

Alistair Darling: Yesterday, I announced that the Highways Agency will trial a car-share lane on the junction of the M606 and the M62 south of Bradford. A second car-share lane will be created on the M1 between junctions 7 and 8—the St. Albans to Luton stretch. Construction started yesterday.

Lynda Waltho: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer; however, we in Stourbridge and the wider black country have our own congestion problems. Will he ensure that the lessons learned from these trials are shared with those who plan transport in the west midlands, so that our congestion and traffic-flow problems can be dealt with?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the conclusions that we draw from these trials will be available to local authorities. Authorities in two parts of the country have already used car-share lanes, which have resulted in a decrease in journey times and more people sharing lifts. The system works in America, Australia and Canada and there is no reason why it should not work here. Of course, we are also doing other things. As my hon. Friend says, there are congestion problems in the west midlands, but measures such as the traffic management scheme on the M42—from next year, use will be made of the hard shoulder during peak times—show that we are getting more out of the current network. As she will be aware, one of our priorities must be to get more out of what we have. We cannot simply build our way out of the problems that we face because of increasing pressure from cars and lorries.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the Secretary of State whether high-occupancy vehicle lanes can also be used by public service transport, given that such vehicles are of course high-occupancy vehicles? Following up the questions from the hon. Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), would it not be helpful if the allocation of resources for retired people was made more equal throughout the country, because it is the allocation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Someone of the hon. Gentleman's experience should know that he should not string on to his first question a second one that is outside the scope of the question before us.

Alistair Darling: In the light of your warning shot, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall answer the first question but not the second; perhaps I will come back to it on another occasion. I am not sure how many buses travel along the stretch of motorway in question. However, the precise regulations will be laid during the next few weeks. In general, we are trying to encourage people who are minded to share vehicles in order to secure priority to do so; indeed; I met a number of people in Leeds and Bradford yesterday who did just that. As I have said, the system works elsewhere and there is no reason why it should not do so in this country. We need to come up with thoughtful and radical solutions to the congestion problems that we face, for the very obvious reasons that we have discussed on many occasions in this place.

Barry Sheerman: For a moment, I was worried that I had stumbled into transport in Lancashire questions. One of these new, shared-vehicle lanes is on the M62 close to my constituency, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to experiment with this scheme. As I saw when I was in north America, it is a very effective way of speeding up traffic. However, will he look more closely at the M62 and at junction 27 in particular, which is a real worry? The M62 will seize up if he does not act more boldly in sorting out the problem.

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, there are proposals to deal with congestion problems on various parts of the M62, and I shall write to him about junction 27. As he says, car-pool lanes, as they are known in north America, do work; indeed, I have driven along them myself. They have significantly reduced congestion on both the east and west coast, and they are good for the environment because they encourage the use of fewer cars.

Owen Paterson: I am surprised by that last comment. A recent report from the University of California, Berkeley suggests that car-pool lanes are underused in California and that they have resulted in increased average journey times. That was confirmed by the Legislative Analyst's Office, which showed that capacity is running at only about two thirds. The Secretary of State mentioned Canada earlier, but a recent report by the Fraser Institute—under the helpful heading "HOV Lanes Make No Sense"—said that high-occupancy vehicle lanes are seriously underused in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Did the Secretary of State or any of his officials read these reports, which were published very recently, before making yesterday's announcement?

Alistair Darling: Yes, we have read them, and my experience is that one does not have to go far to find an expert report condemning any proposition in respect of transport that one cares to put forward. I was struck by something that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who speaks for the Conservatives on these matters, said the other day. He said:
	"I think we have not had a clear transport strategy in this party in recent years; we've had tactical positions."
	I suspect that what we have heard from the Opposition today is simply a tactical position.

Margaret Moran: I welcome the proposals for a car share lane on the M1 up to my constituency in Luton. It will benefit local people and those using London Luton airport, which we hope will be expanded. Will my right hon. Friend look at ways to encourage the local authority to work with local businesses and the airport to facilitate car-sharing schemes, so that we can continue to reduce congestion on the M1 and make maximum use of what is an excellent proposal to reduce congestion generally?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. Given that all parties are considering ways to reduce the environmental damage caused by cars and by transport in general, any suitable proposal should be examined. I am sorry that the Opposition have turned their minds against that. We know that they oppose the climate change levy, but they also seem to be against just about everything else that would help to improve the environment. We are prepared to put these measures in place, no matter how difficult that may be. We will not run away from difficult decisions.

Transport Infrastructure (South Hampshire)

Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the transport infrastructure in south Hampshire.

Stephen Ladyman: We are aware that local authorities in south Hampshire have ambitious plans for growth. We look forward to seeing their proposals to support that in their new local transport plan.

Peter Viggers: Is the Minister aware that 38,000 people on the Gosport peninsula have jobs, but that there are only 19,000 jobs on the peninsula? The result, of course, is a tidal flow of traffic out and in every day, which causes intense frustration for people stuck in that slow-moving traffic jam. The Government encouraged Hampshire county council to consider a light rapid transit scheme and then turned the idea down flat. They refused to compensate the council and its council tax payers for the costs incurred. When will there be a new Minister for local transport who will honour the promise that there would be a meeting with the county council to discuss the way ahead? What chances are there of improvement and will the Government fund it?

Stephen Ladyman: On the south Hampshire rapid transit scheme, the Government said in March 2001 that we would consider it but that the public contribution had to be capped at £170 million. That cost had risen by £100 million by 2003. In 2005, south Hampshire produced a much reduced scheme costing £250 million-odd at today's prices. That increase in costs is not sustainable and that was why the Government were not prepared to back the scheme any further. Of course we are prepared to meet the local council to talk about these issues and to try to find a constructive way forward. We have made that offer already and look forward with great interest to studying the council's further plans.

Mark Hoban: The Minister referred to the plans of councils in south Hampshire for more development and more transport infrastructure. Will he commit to work with them, so that firm and costed plans are in place before new housing developments are begun? Many of the problems in south Hampshire arise from the fact that, in the past, transport infrastructure has lagged behind housing developments.

Stephen Ladyman: Of course my Department and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work closely with local councils. That is happening already, but plans must be practical, affordable and sustainable. These are difficult questions to answer, but we will make sure that infrastructure funding is available to support much needed growth in the area.

Trunk Roads (East Anglia)

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet East Anglia's local authorities to discuss improvements to local trunk roads.

Stephen Ladyman: We currently have no plans to meet local authorities in East Anglia to discuss improvements to either local or trunk road schemes.

Henry Bellingham: I am sorry to hear that, because if the Minister had a meeting, he would learn that Norfolk has fewer trunk road bypasses and less dual carriageway than any other county in England. Not only is that harming the quality of life in many villages, it is holding back job creation and enterprise. When will work commence on the A47 Middleton-East Winch bypass and when can we expect some improvements on the A17?

Stephen Ladyman: Although I have no plans to meet the local authorities, we have been talking to them and to the region about plans hitherto. I have visited the A47 to see the issues for myself. We have just had guidance from the region about where road funding priorities ought to lie. We are considering that and will make our decision known very soon. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, given what he has just said, he might want to discuss the presumption against road building, as it was described, with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is leading the Conservative commission on that subject.

Bob Blizzard: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Highways Agency's proposals for repairing the lift-up bridge on the A12 trunk road in the middle of Lowestoft? It envisages closing the bridge down for whole weekends, which will bring the town to a standstill. It simply would not be able to function if that were to happen. The cost to the town would be enormous in terms of lost hours, lost production and lost business. Will he look into that matter and agree to meet me before any final decision is made on what kind of contract will be offered?

Stephen Ladyman: Of course I will meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. The Highways Agency will consult thoroughly to find the best way forward. Obviously, if repairs are needed, we have to find some way of dealing with the problem without disrupting traffic for his constituents and others in the town. We will do our best to do that and I will make sure that he and I meet to discuss it.

A303

David Heath: What the timetable is for the planned improvements to the A303 in Somerset; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Ladyman: We are considering the south-west region's advice on its priorities for major schemes in the south-west, including schemes on the A303. We hope to announce our response to that advice later in the year.

David Heath: There are two things that interest my constituents: the Sparkford to Ilchester safety improvements and the replacement of the road surface on the A303 with a low noise surface. We are disappointed that, given that other schemes on the A303 have been delayed for unavoidable reasons, the safety improvements—not capacity improvements—between Sparkford and Ilchester have not been brought forward. There is also disappointment that the anticipated change of road surface has apparently been delayed because the money that would have been used has gone instead to the A1. Will the Minister consider both schemes and write to me to say whether they can be undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity? They would improve my constituents' quality of life.

Stephen Ladyman: I will write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him what the latest position is on any safety and surface improvements that are needed on those roads. As for the capacity increases, he is a member of a party with a presumption against road building—we are constantly being told that we should not be building any—but he and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) between them have proposed £2 billion of road building.

Jeremy Browne: There is an intrinsic link between the A303 project being mooted by the Government and the A358 dualling, which links the end of the Ilminster bypass on the A303 to junction 25 of the M5 at Taunton. Will the Minister give us an update on the progress that the Government are making with the dualling of the A358 on that stretch and when they anticipate starting work on that project?

Stephen Ladyman: Once again, we are considering the advice from the south-west region on priorities and as soon as we have that advice, we will make it known.

UK Airports

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the effect of the structure of British Airports Authority airports on his policy on UK airports.

Alistair Darling: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to Question 2.

Tony Lloyd: Referring to that answer, although I accept that it is the competition authorities that must ultimately decide on the balance of advantage, will the Minister ask the competition authorities if they will look carefully at producing a report on the costs and benefits of the BAA monopoly, particularly in the south-east, and the way in which that impacts on airlines and the travelling public, particularly in the light of the calls for the break-up of BAA by many of the internationally known airlines?

Alistair Darling: We have responded to the Civil Aviation Authority consultation, which deals with the designation of the London airports. Any question of an investigation of the ownership of those airports has to be dealt with by the competition authorities. The most important thing is for us to ensure that, whoever owns the airports, we get the investment that we need to provide additional runway and terminal capacity. That is the most important thing for the well-being of the economic health of this country. As I said earlier, no Government can be indifferent to that.

David Taylor: When my right hon. Friend considers the structure of BAA and airports in the months to come, will he widen his net to look at those cases in which regional airports are owned by the same organisation? The Manchester Airport Group owns the large Manchester airport, as well as East Midlands airport in my constituency, which has significant problems that MAG has not addressed. Will he also review regional airport ownership?

Alistair Darling: No, there is no reason why Manchester Airport Group or anyone else should not own East Midlands airport. The test is whether there is a monopoly and whether that monopoly power is being abused. That is what the competition authorities have to decide under the Enterprise Act 2003. There is no reason why a company cannot own more than one airport. What is important is that the company concerned is prepared to commit sufficient investment to ensure that the airport can meet the demands on it and continue to contribute to the British economy. East Midlands airport, as my hon. Friend knows, has seen a substantial increase in freight traffic. I appreciate that there are local concerns about noise, but the contribution that the airport makes to the east midlands economy, and therefore to jobs, cannot be overlooked.

Night Flights

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on the frequency of night flights to Heathrow airport.

Derek Twigg: The Government set night flying restrictions at Heathrow airport on a seasonal basis. Those restrictions include a limit on the number of flights to and from the airport between 23.30 and 06.00. For winter 2005–06, that limit was 2,550; for summer 2006, it will be 3,250. That works out on average as about 16 flights per night; however, the limit is not set on a nightly or weekly basis.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that many of my constituents believe that there are more night flights in and out of Heathrow, which are causing unreasonable disruption? Can he give some assurances that the limit will not be raised in the future?

Derek Twigg: The right hon. Gentleman knows that last year we had the second stage of a consultation on night flying restrictions that will apply from October 2006 to October 2012. It a question of striking a balance between the economic benefits and the noise nuisance caused. We need to consider that carefully.

Secure Station Scheme

Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on the outcomes from the secure station scheme.

Derek Twigg: Network Rail and most train operating companies are participating in the scheme. Their accredited stations have a comprehensive package of measures to reduce crime and reassure passengers. The relaunch of the scheme last March has seen a 52 per cent. increase in accredited stations.

Simon Hughes: Is the Minister willing to meet a delegation of London Members of Parliament to consider the fact that several underground stations have lost their safe accreditation and many commuter stations on the overground rail system are also not regarded as safe? At such a meeting, we could consider what is a major issue for London and what we could do to make all stations, not only those in the capital city, safe at all times for all passengers.

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a difference between the Mayor's responsibilities and the Department's responsibilities. We want improvements in security at all stations, including CCTV. We have the secure station scheme, and the new South Western franchise includes a particular section on the need to consider and improve security. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the issue, but he will understand the division of responsibilities between the Mayor and Ministers.

Betty Williams: Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the Minister for Economic Development and Transport of the Welsh Assembly Government and bring to the attention of the appropriate Minister the fact that stations such as Bangor in my constituency are unmanned after 9.30 pm? It is not only a question of security, but of people with disabilities not receiving the help and attention they need when using lifts and so on.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in rail matters and I have met her and colleagues to talk about train services in Wales. As she knows, responsibility for trains in Wales has been transferred to the Welsh Assembly, so it would be best for her to direct her representations to the relevant Minister in the Assembly. I am sure that she understands that we are very much aware of the situation and want improvements in security at stations.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for the interest that the Minister has shown in the Cotswold line recently, but sadly it is too late to deal in the franchise process with the large number of unmanned stations on the line because the franchise has been let. In future franchise extensions and renewals, will the Department take a careful look at suggestions from train operating companies that more stations should have people actually manning them? As the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) has just said, it is intimidating for elderly and disabled people in particular who are trying to get access to rail stations.

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we have exchanged correspondence on those issues and discussed them at previous Question Times. I understand his point, but we have to look on a station-by-station basis at the business case and at affordability, in terms of achieving the best value for money through improvements in the whole franchise. The early part of the Greater Western franchise will put in £200 million of investment, which will obviously improve trains and stations. We want improvements in those areas, but we have to look at things station by station.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Information Technology

Anne Snelgrove: If he will make a statement on the use of information technology to help reform public services.

Jim Murphy: Information technology is an essential component of the Government's programme to reform public services and enable citizen choice. IT can help deliver the responsive and increasingly personalised services that the public increasingly have a right to expect.

Anne Snelgrove: My hon. Friend knows, because I wrote to him last week, that we have a particular problem in Swindon, which I am trying to help the local education authority to solve. The LEA and schools feel that not enough children are taking up free school meals, which affects both funding and the relative position of schools in examination groups. Is there anything that my hon. Friend can do to help Swindon LEA to improve the take-up of free school meals so that the LEA receives fair funding and the young people have the number of teachers they need in front of them in their classes?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. She has raised the matter on a number of occasions, not least in an Adjournment debate. I remain disappointed that there is continued misunderstanding about information-sharing under the Data Protection Act 1998, which is why the Cabinet Office is working with the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Information Commissioner to try to ensure best practice across public services and public organisations so that some of the unfounded concerns about information-sharing are not repeated. A Cabinet Sub-Committee is also looking into the matter. Finally, we are trying to find ways to ensure that businesses and individuals do not have repeatedly to provide the same information, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be relieved to hear that work is ongoing to overcome some of the misconceptions about the 1998 Act.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

Simon Hughes: What recent representations he has received on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Jim Murphy: Since the introduction of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill to Parliament on 11 January, I have received about 50 representations from the private and public sectors as well as from individuals.

Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that this is not just about the Procedure Committee, nor people such as my former law lecturer John Spencer and his colleagues at Cambridge, nor even my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (David Howarth) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but people such as my 83-year-old constituent who says that we fought world war two to oppose dictatorship, so it is vital that provisions such as those in the Bill do not pass? Can the Minister tell us whether he is listening to the growing number of people, including the whole of my party, who believe that the measure is terrible, bad and wrong, and that it is anti-democratic legislation?

Jim Murphy: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. I cannot congratulate him on the entire contents of his question. I know that the job that he has is not the one that he envisaged, but good luck to him nevertheless.
	There is cross-party acknowledgement of the fact that the attempts at better regulation in 1994 and 2001 have not been effective in delivering the type of better regulation and simplification that we hoped for. As we said, a wider power is contained in the Bill, so it is important that we get the protections right as well. Strong protections are needed, so we are continuing to listen about how that can be achieved. As I say, there are meetings with the Chairmen of Select Committees and others to try to get those protections right. We do not want to repeat the problems of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, with a narrow definition of the nature of the burdens that prevented us from delivering the type of simplification to which businesses and public services are entitled.

Vera Baird: Is there not potential in the Bill to cut red tape and administrative burdens not only on business, but on charities and voluntary organisations, which, when run on a small scale, are often administratively stressed? Is that not a very important step forward? Exactly how will that advantage be measured to ensure that we have done all that we need to do and that there are real benefits on the ground?

Jim Murphy: My hon. and learned Friend is characteristically correct in saying that the enabling powers in the Bill can provide the simplification that charities, voluntary organisations and public servants can expect. I understand that the Charity Commission is working on its simplification plan to find out how we can lift the burden of bureaucracy, administrative burdens and unnecessary regulations from the shoulders of charities and public servants. As that goes on, perhaps we can have conversations with my hon. and learned Friend and others about the most effective way of doing that, but the Bill is about simplifying rules and regulations that relate not only to business, but to the type of organisations that she mentions.

David Heath: Would that it were, but the fact is that any good that the Bill may do in deregulating will be far outweighed by the extraordinary powers that the Minister is taking to himself and his colleagues in part 1. Part 1 simply will not do, and we will ensure that it proceeds no further. Given that the Bill reorders the relationship between the Executive and the legislature, will he consider the Power commission report as a representation on the Bill? Will he consider the very sensible suggestion that we now need a concordat that limits the powers of the Executive and enshrines the powers of Parliament?

Jim Murphy: The principle of an additional legislative route through the House was established in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and the 2001 Act. Some of the phrases that the hon. Gentleman has used in the past about the power being unprecedented in a time of peace were made about the 1994 Act as well, and that has turned out not to be the case at all. We are happy to continue to listen, and he is aware that we are actively considering how best to include an absolute veto in the Bill, so that the Commons, the Lords and their relevant Committees will ultimately decide whether the Government can progress with any simplification order that they propose. Ultimately, as we extend the power, it is important that we have additional, effective safeguards and protections in place.

David Winnick: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is listening. I do not for a moment doubt that he is well meaning in proposing the measure, but does he accept that many Labour Members have concerns about the possible dangers to Parliament and that it would be wrong for the measure to pass as it stands at the moment? Let us just imagine what another Government could do if the Bill came on to the statute book.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right and I am happy to continue the dialogue not only with those who serve on the Select Committees, but with him as well of course. I accept that we need to get the protections and safeguards exactly right, but I hope that he acknowledges that the 2001 Act, which is currently in place, just does not suit the purposes of delivering the better regulation agenda that emerges from the Hampton report and the simplifications plans that are coming from the Departments. I am happy to have that dialogue, but we do not wish to repeat the mistakes and the tight controls in the 2001 Act, which everyone acknowledges was too tightly framed in its legal sense.

Oliver Heald: It is not just the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the TUC who say that the powers are too wide. Is it not right that the business community has got on to the Minister to say that it wants an effective tool for deregulation, not the abolition of parliamentary scrutiny? Is it not right, as reported on Sunday, that Lord Grocott—the Government's Chief Whip in the other place—has expressed concern that if further changes are not made to the Bill,
	"we are missing our last opportunity to avoid likely defeat"?
	The Minister keeps saying that he will make major changes to the Bill, but when will the amendments be tabled? I have tabled my amendments for debate on Report—10 of them, all of which offer the sort of safeguards that the Select Committees have asked for. When will he table his?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are actively considering the specifics of vetoes and other matters. He knows that because we had a meeting this very morning to discuss those matters, and I had a similar meeting also this morning with those on the Liberal party's Front Bench. As we develop a consensus on how we enable the veto to be placed on the face of the Bill, we will table our amendments at that point.
	Business rightly wants simplification and to maintain an additional route for the delivery of the simplification plans so that we maintain UK competitiveness in a global economy. The current legislative process is not fit for purpose and we need an additional way of bringing about the simplification that UK business, public servants and voluntary organisations so badly need.

Directgov Website

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What plans he has to publicise the Directgov website.

Jim Murphy: On 6 March, we launched a marketing campaign to raise awareness of Directgov. The campaign will run for two months and includes the national press, radio advertising and the online media.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What guidance is being given to local councils, such as Durham city council which serves my constituency, to provide links from their websites to the Directgov website? What information is available to councils in constructing their websites so that they avoid political bias?

Jim Murphy: I am not aware of the specifics of my hon. Friend's last point about the political bias of council websites. That is not the intention and it is not in the guidance that we would give. It would be disappointing if that was a feature of such facilities. I understand that 379 local councils are actively participating in Directgov and the major piece of advice that the Government give is that the information on such websites has to be trusted, be relevant and add value to people's everyday lives. That is how we will ensure that IT is at the centre of the transformation of people's lives and public services.

British Nationals Abroad

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement in respect of today's publication of the first-ever comprehensive guide to the Government's support for British nationals in difficulty abroad.
	It is obviously traumatic to be caught up in any emergency, to fall victim to crime or to have to go to hospital in an emergency. When that happens abroad, it can be worse still for those involved, who might be far from friends and family and unfamiliar with the local language, laws and procedures. It has therefore long been a central task of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to assist British nationals who get into difficulty while travelling or living overseas.
	Demand for such support has never been greater. People from the United Kingdom now make more than 65 million overseas trips a year—three times as many as 20 years ago—and a greater proportion of them are travelling independently and to more distant and sometimes more dangerous destinations. Meanwhile, some 13 million British nationals live overseas.
	Our travel advice covers 217 countries and territories and the website receives nearly 5 million hits a year. Our consular staff now deal with nearly 3.5 million inquiries a year, including from the 860,000 people who visit our consulates in person, and we help around 85,000 people a year in need of more acute assistance. For example, last year, we supported 4,200 British nationals in hospital abroad, helped the families of 3,900 people who died overseas and dealt with the detention of 6,000 British nationals. Last year, we also assisted nationals affected by major crises, including the hurricanes in America and the Caribbean and the terrorist attacks in Egypt and Turkey, and we continue to provide support to the British victims of the tsunami and their families. In addition, we are the only western nation regularly to provide special consular services for Hajj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia.
	We have responded to the growing and changing demand through a programme of major improvements to the consular support that we offer British nationals. After the Bali bombings in October 2002, we set up consular rapid deployment teams, which are on stand-by to travel quickly to the scenes of major emergencies. Today we have twice as many trained consular staff on 24-hour stand-by for those teams as before the tsunami. In addition, we also have a new team based in Hong Kong that covers the Asian region and we will launch another in north America before the hurricane season this year. Our teams now include staff from the police and the Red Cross and medical personnel when they are needed. We have raised the quality of training for our consular staff and made crisis management training obligatory for all our heads of mission overseas. We have set up specialist teams in specific areas, such as forced marriages and child abductions, and recruited specialist advisers in family law and police and social work. We have expanded our 24-hour response centre in London and have new call-handling arrangements with the police to allow us to deal with a very high volume of calls in a crisis.
	We are determined to keep improving the support that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides. To that end, in the summer of 2004, we asked the National Audit Office to review our consular operations. Its report was published in November last year and I have accepted in full its recommendations—indeed, many have already been implemented. In the report, the NAO noted that the UK
	"has a reputation among other countries' foreign ministries as world leaders in consular crisis management".
	If we are to deliver consular assistance in the most effective and efficient manner possible, the public need to know what support the Foreign Office's staff overseas can provide to them in times of need, and, just as importantly, people need to be clear about what we cannot do. For example, we cannot get people out of jail and nor can we pay their hospital bills. Helping British travellers better to understand what support is available should encourage them to prepare thoroughly and minimise the risks that they take.
	It was for those reasons that in the manifesto for the last general election, the Government said that they would
	"consult widely before publishing a comprehensive statement"
	on the support that they could offer British nationals in difficulty abroad. I launched the consultation process with a written statement to the House on 20 October last year. My noble Friend Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for the matter, hosted a major consultative event on 27 October with representatives from the House, the travel industry, non-governmental organisations and consumer groups. The consultation period lasted until 30 November and produced an overwhelmingly positive response. The result is the document that I am launching today.
	The fundamental responsibility in respect of the risks of travelling abroad must be met by travellers themselves through an appreciation of the risks and with comprehensive travel insurance that covers the loss of personal effects, medical care, accidents and criminal acts, and, if necessary, repatriation to the UK. The only alternative to the personal responsibility of the traveller is that the taxpayer should meet the cost, but since travel abroad is plainly a matter of choice, and those who do travel abroad tend to have more disposable income than many in this country, it cannot be right for the burden to fall on the taxpayer as a whole.
	However, since the atrocities of 11 September 2001, we have accepted that there may be circumstances so grave and exceptional that it is appropriate for the Government, from public funds, to provide exceptional assistance. The available assistance is set out on page 29 of the guide. When we trigger such assistance must be a matter of judgment at the time, and its potential availability should never be seen as a substitute for good insurance cover.
	Where there has been a major disaster and we have triggered an emergency package for victims abroad, there has often also been a need for comprehensive support for victims and/or their families on their return to the UK. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has very kindly taken the lead on this. For victims of the tsunami and their families, for example, we worked with the Red Cross to help those worst affected to gain access to financial support on their return.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we must examine the question of financial support for those caught up in terrorist attacks overseas. At present, neither our domestic criminal injuries compensation scheme nor any other victim compensation scheme covers those killed or injured abroad. We are now considering a range of options in that respect, and we will make an announcement when we have concluded that consideration.
	I have sent copies of the new guide to all hon. Members, and we will also send copies to all libraries and citizens advice bureaux across the UK and to our partners in the travel industry and other associated industries and bodies. We are producing a summary document in leaflet form, which will be available at airports and our travel agency partners. Information based on the guide is being sent out in the form of a checklist for travellers, which will be included with every one of the more than 5 million British passports that we issue each year. We will place the guide on our travel website, from which hard copies can also be ordered. We are also translating it into Welsh, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu, Gujurati, Arabic and Chinese, and those versions will be available on our website or in hard copy on request.
	Within the Foreign Office, the new guide will provide our staff both overseas and in London with a clear statement of exactly what they can and should do for British nationals in difficulty, and it will therefore be an important tool for further improving the quality and consistency of support across our consular network. Next week, I shall launch an updated document setting out the Government's international strategic priorities for the next decade. For the first time, consular work will become a strategic priority in its own right, which means that every one of our heads of mission abroad will have personal responsibility for delivering support for British nationals in difficulty as set out in the new guide.
	Almost a year ago to the day, I made a statement to the House on our response to the tsunami in the Indian ocean. I was struck then by the tributes from both sides of the House on the work of our consular staff around the world. Our staff deal face to face and on a regular basis with the kind of traumatic situations that most people rarely have to confront over a lifetime, and I pay tribute to them again today. I am proud that the consular support that we give British nationals abroad is among the very best in the world. I am determined and confident that it will stay that way, and the new guide will be an important tool to that end.

William Hague: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement and the publication of the new booklet of advice. Our nationals are prolific travellers who, regrettably, will sometimes fall victim to crime, natural disasters or even kidnappings and terrorist incidents. It is absolutely right that they should know what help they can expect from their nearest embassy or consulate and that the common-sense responsibilities of travellers are also made clear. I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to our consular staff around the world, who take on such trying tasks with such incredible dedication.
	Within that general welcome, may I press the Foreign Secretary on a few points? First, have all possible lessons been learned from the handling of previous disasters affecting British citizens overseas? Foreign Office staff worked very hard and generally very successfully on the aftermath of the tsunami. However, the Foreign Secretary has referred to the action taken following the Bali bombings, after which, he will recall, the Foreign Office apologised for a lack of co-ordination on bringing home the bodies of British victims, which placed families under enormous pressure. Is he confident that such a lack of co-ordination is now a thing of the past? In looking at the range of options, he has referred to a victims' compensation scheme: what lessons is he learning from the reserve funds and other arrangements for this purpose already established by Australia, Spain, France and Italy?
	Secondly, what plans have been put in place to benefit from inter-departmental co-operation in the event of major catastrophes with, for instance, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development? The Foreign Office is not the only arm of the British Government with a presence overseas, and the forced marriage unit run between the Foreign Office and the Home Office is a welcome example of such co-operation. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the lead Department on looking after victims on their return to the United Kingdom is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—there is presumably a good reason for that? The Foreign Secretary is smiling, but I am sure that there is a good reason for that.
	Given that the security of our missions abroad is of paramount importance to deliver such services to British citizens, is he satisfied that all necessary and proportionate steps have been taken to ensure the safety of embassy and consular staff throughout the world? In considering the position of British nationals abroad, will he comment on US-UK extradition measures and their current operation? Does he accept that there is concern that British citizens have been extradited to the United States for non-terrorist offences without full reciprocity yet by the United States?
	Given that the document asks British nationals to have confidence in what the Foreign Office can do for them, will the Foreign Secretary respond to the recent report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which commented on a
	"woeful lack of professional skills and a disturbing series of failings in senior FCO management".
	It said that
	"the FCO needs to catch up with the rest of Whitehall, by recruiting professionally qualified, experienced people to . . . top . . . roles".
	Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that those criticisms are invalid? If not, are they being acted on?
	Finally, what is the impact on the Foreign Office's ability to give appropriate help and advice of the closure of overseas posts and missions? Four posts have closed in Africa, five in the Asia Pacific region and three in the United States. Has any assessment been made of the impact on British travellers? Again, does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee report that the changes to overseas posts lacked a clear rationale? Does he accept its concern that
	"a number of the affected Posts are in Commonwealth countries, with which the United Kingdom has had a long and particularly close association."
	The initiative is welcome, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary can give us additional assurances on the matters that I have raised.

Jack Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the initiative and for the tribute that he paid to our staff.
	He asked whether we have learned lessons from previous emergencies overseas. I believe so, but I am not at all complacent. We all learned from an unsatisfactory performance in Bali. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) is in the Chamber, and I know that he had a tragic and personal experience of that. We must continue to learn lessons. As for a victims' compensation scheme, we are looking at the examples provided by France, Spain, Australia and the other countries mentioned by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). On the question of whether there is sufficient interdepartmental co-operation abroad, I have never, in fact, seen any problems affecting the co-operation between representatives of different Government Departments abroad. When they are abroad, they represent the British Government and, as I saw in the aftermath of the tsunami and several other disasters including the Istanbul bombings, they do not stand on departmental loyalties—they get down to business. A bigger issue is the co-ordination between British Government Departments once people return home, and the right hon. Gentleman asked why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for co-ordination. In the aftermath of 11 September there was a need for a Department without parti pris to try to bring together other Departments. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited the Departments of Health, Social Security and others to co-ordinate their work, and I think that that arrangement has worked rather well. I accept that it appears slightly eccentric, but there is method.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether necessary and proportionate steps have been taken to protect the security of our staff. Yes, I believe that we are taking such steps, and a very large amount of money has been spent on protecting staff. However, one can never guarantee staff security, as I saw on 20 November 2003. Moreover, we must ask our staff to take risks. I do not want reach the position in which some Governments have found themselves—their staff are in bunkers, unable to communicate with members of the public—and neither do our staff.

Crispin Blunt: No. 10?

Jack Straw: I was talking about other countries. Carbolic soap will be provided afterwards.
	There is a balance to be struck, but sometimes, as the House knows from the announcement that I made last Tuesday, security becomes paramount.
	I understand the concerns that have been expressed about extradition. It is sometimes the case, not only in respect of extradition treaties with the United States, that there is not symmetry when it comes to ratification of such treaties. That is my understanding, but I am happy to pass on the concerns of the House, if such they be, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the criticism from the Foreign Affairs Committee about a skills shortage in the Foreign Office. I shall respond to that report in due course. I thought that the criticism was over-harsh, but I accept that we needed more professional skills, and a great deal of effort is going into recruiting higher levels of professionalism in the finance, human resources and information technology directorates.
	The last question was in respect of the closure of posts. We do assess the effect on British travellers and British interests abroad. Some posts have closed; quite a number have opened as well. I hope there will not be any more closures for the foreseeable future. In any event, we never know where the next emergency will arise. We could pepper a country with posts. We might be lucky and the emergency arises close to a post, or we might be very unlucky and it occurs thousands of miles or thousands of kilometres away. We must ensure that we are flexible and can respond rapidly, wherever the emergency takes place.

Mike Gapes: I can assure the Foreign Secretary that what I am about to say is not over-harsh. I refer him to the aspects of his statement that take up what the Foreign Affairs Committee was calling for when we asked in our report for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make it clear to the public that there are limits to what can be done, and that people sometimes have unrealistic expectations about the support that might be available. The Committee praises and is very supportive of the work of our consular staff over the recent past in the case of the tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and other disasters.
	I hope my right hon. Friend's statement is the first step towards implementing measures that we have called for. Will he look at the other recommendations in our second report and act on them in a similarly positive way?

Jack Straw: Yes, I always look at the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee and I respond to them recommendation by recommendation. I am grateful for the praise that the Chairman of the Committee has just offered the House. I endorse what the Committee stated at paragraph 107 of its report:
	"We conclude that in recent years excessive and unrealistic expectations have arisen of what the FCO is able to do for people who get into difficulties abroad, including in circumstances such as natural disasters."
	We sought to spell out what we think is among the best available assistance, and we also spelled out clearly what the limits are.

Michael Moore: On the Liberal Democrat Benches we, too, welcome the statement and the publication of the new guide. I echo the tributes paid to consular staff, who have often in recent times been called upon to cope with unimaginable and traumatic situations, in addition to all the duties that they perform with professionalism and dedication day in, day out.
	In responding to the lessons learned from those catastrophes and the criticisms from the recent National Audit Office and Select Committee reports, will the Foreign Secretary state what additional resources will be made available to the emergency disaster reserve in the future? Will he be more specific about the types of compensation measures he is considering for people who are injured or families who are bereaved as a result of terrorist attacks abroad? What is the time scale for his deliberations?
	What level of resources does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind for the scheme? Will the FCO have to find the money from within existing budgets? Finally, what progress is being made in tackling all the identified shortcomings in the Foreign Affairs Committee report, and has he changed any of the targets for the coming year as a result?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for this initiative.
	On additional resources, the cost of consular services is met from the consular premium. That is included in the cost of a passport, so as demand rises the available resources also rise. We could not possibly have dealt with a threefold increase in the number of travellers abroad and the huge additional demand caused by changes in telecommunications and IT without that relative buoyancy of the income stream. Included in that is an element for the emergency response, which is held by the Treasury and triggered when we declare a full emergency. I can let the hon. Gentleman have full details of that.
	We are looking at compensation in respect of, for example, victims of terrorism who do not have insurance. I should say that it is quite complicated. The schemes that are run by countries abroad tend to be pretty restrictive, more so than people might believe. Of course, there is always a difficulty in ensuring that an evidential base for the injuries or trauma is satisfied. That is easier in respect of terrorist incidents than in respect of some others. That is one of the reasons why most countries have been reluctant to set up such schemes.
	I should say, too, that as a result of discussions between our consular directorate and the insurance industry, insurance companies are now extending the insurance cover that they provide to include terrorist incidents. In my view, it must be a fundamental responsibility of travellers to ensure that they are covered for all potential risks.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is wrong and inappropriate that we should conflate this with the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has very much got my fingerprints on it. I hope that we will have a separate discussion on that on another occasion. I welcome the statement on this narrow issue. It is measured and appropriate and acknowledges, as I want to, the very harrowing circumstances that many of our diplomats have to deal with week after week in respect of bereavements around the world. Some people—I witnessed this myself when I was staying with a diplomat friend abroad—welcome the nanny state when they have the most minor hiccup in their travel arrangements, and test the patience and diligence of our diplomats by more or less expecting from them bed, breakfast and so on. That is inappropriate. I welcome this and hope that we will distinguish it from the discussion on the Foreign Affairs Committee report that we might have on another occasion.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and for his confession about his fingerprints. We hold good biometric data on him in any event, so we were able to work that one out for ourselves.
	My hon. Friend is right that there can be terribly harrowing circumstances. I saw that during the tsunami, when the police and our own officials worked in the most atrocious and appalling circumstances in dealing with bereaved victims and with cadavers. We have to ensure that support from the British state is available when it is really needed. Of course, that is right—consular assistance has always been a principal function of the Foreign Office. At the same time, however, we have to say to people that they must accept responsibility for themselves.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary's comments. We met after Bali, and I am very pleased that he took on board many of the comments that were made. We also met, as he may remember, in Phuket directly after the tsunami; again, it is good to see that some changes have been made.
	I welcome the Government's initiative, but I would like to see them go much further. More than £50 million was rightly given to those affected by the 7/7 bombings, but not one penny is available to any Briton who is caught up in a terrorist incident abroad. Will the Foreign Secretary allow us to catch up with Australia, Spain, the United States, France, Italy and all the other countries that have set up a reserve fund to help those who are caught up in such horrific incidents? Terrorism is not limited to national boundaries, and neither should be our support for British citizens.

Jack Straw: As I have already acknowledged, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has more acute experience of the harrowing nature of terrorist incidents than probably any other hon. Member. He was critical but generous about what British staff tried to do, and I hope that we have learned lessons post- October 2002 and from what, as I told the House at the time, was not a satisfactory response.
	As is set out in page 29 of the document, we provide quite a lot of support for those who suffer in terrorist incidents abroad, including medical evacuation for those who have been injured; paying immediate medical expenses; transporting bodies back home; paying for return luggage costs; and paying for travel to the site of the attack, accommodation and travel insurance for two members of the victim's family. Those arrangements, which worked well after the tsunami, for example, were first put in place by us after 11 September.
	I accept that there is a wider issue about victims abroad and compensation, which victims of terrorism at home would receive. We are currently studying that matter, including examples from other countries.

Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, with which I agree, about the excellent work of the consular staff at the Islamabad high commission in rescuing mainly young girls from imprisonment and forced marriage. However, does he agree that we could avoid many of those traumatic situations if we introduced a specific criminal offence of forcing to marry or even conspiracy to force to marry?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I promise to give active consideration to her proposal.

Paul Keetch: The Foreign Secretary will recall the tragic murder of my constituent, Mr. Richard Collins, on 8 March last year in Thailand. The right hon. Gentleman kindly arranged for my constituent's mother, Yvonne Hart, and I to visit officials. He will remember that one of the most appalling aspects of the case was that Richard's body was not kept properly and, consequently, within days, it was not only unrecognisable but had deteriorated to such an extent that a proper investigation could not be conducted into the cause of death. Will he ensure that, in future, consul officials overseas have a standing instruction that, when British nationals are murdered, they should try to make sure that the body is properly maintained not only for investigation but identification purposes? Surely that is not an unrealistic expectation.

Jack Straw: I am happy to give that standing instruction but with the caveat that it depends not only on consular staff but, above all, on the relevant local authorities.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the publication of the document, but I want to raise two issues that arise from a case with which I have been dealing for the past five years. The first concerns honorary British consulates. My constituent, Christopher Rochester, died in Rhodes in 2001, and the honorary British consul there at the time was frankly of little help to the family. It became clear in subsequent legal cases that he was closely connected to people who were involved in Christopher's death.
	My second point is about access to legal support. Christopher Rochester's family have found it difficult to get independent legal advice even in Rhodes, which is part of the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend comment on what assistance can be given to families to ensure that they have access to good, local legal advice?

Jack Straw: I do not know the details of the service that the honorary consul provided in the case that my hon. Friend raises, but I am happy to examine it on his behalf. We have increased the number of honorary consuls and we are trying to increase their training. However many paid staff we have, there will always be a need for honorary consuls so that we can spread the work even more widely. Overwhelmingly, they do a good job.
	We cannot provide legal advice to British nationals overseas. That is a matter for insurance.

Kevan Jones: indicated dissent.

Jack Straw: No, I am sorry. The House must make a judgment about that because the costs could be large. On the whole, people who travel overseas have higher disposable income than the average British taxpayer. I do not believe that an elderly lady in any constituency should pay tax towards covering a risk that should be met by insurance. However, we can provide lists of lawyers, whom we believe to be properly qualified to give advice. They may or may not be on the island of Rhodes but they could be elsewhere in Greece.

Andrew Lansley: The Foreign Secretary might be aware that I have had correspondence with the Home Secretary on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Jocelyn Waller, who is chairperson of the UK Bali bombings victims group. I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary has not been able to go beyond what was said on 7 December in "Rebuilding lives: supporting victims of crime", published by the Home Office. Will the Foreign Secretary at least tell the House what progress the Government have made in considering the option for a national charitable disaster fund, and for its retrospective application to the victims of Bali and Sharm el-Sheikh?

Jack Straw: As I have said, we are giving active consideration to that matter, and we hope to make announcements as soon as we can. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot say any more on that at this stage.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Foreign Office and its career structure tend to favour the large, traditional embassies over the smaller, more far-flung posts, yet it is often in those more distant postings that the best work is done to promote British interests and to look after visitors, both personal and commercial. What systematic study is the Foreign Office carrying out to ensure that the deployment of resources and staff overseas is brought into line with the tasks that we expect of them?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. There was a period, particularly during the cold war, when the most attractive posts were seen to be in the northern hemisphere, including those in America and the key posts in Europe, the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc. Since I have been Foreign Secretary, post-11 September, I have been determined to shift that emphasis and to ensure not only that we honour the staff who work in very hard posts abroad—which numerically comprise the greatest number—but that they are given the best career opportunities. Yes, staff can go to the more attractive, and sometimes easier, posts but there is an expectation that, if they want a good career, they will have to serve in the harder posts as well. We are doing a great deal in that regard. For example, an exercise is now under way to reduce the staffing of the European directorates in London and of some of the western European embassies, because an awful lot of their traditional tasks are now carried out either on a capital-to-capital basis or in Brussels. We shall use those resources to train and improve the opportunities of the staff of posts elsewhere, including the Arab world.

Andrew MacKay: I warmly commend the Foreign Secretary on his full apology to the families of the victims of the tsunami in Thailand who did not receive the help from our consular services that they should have done—in stark contrast, incidentally, to what happened in Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Indonesia. He says that he hopes that lessons have been learned, but does he not understand that many of the victims' families will wonder whether that can be the case when none of those responsible for the negligence in Thailand has been disciplined or sacked?

Jack Straw: The situation in Thailand was much more complex than in those other posts. A very high level of service was provided in the Maldives, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, but the situation was very difficult in Thailand. I was there just a few days after the tsunami, and the problems did not arise because of incompetence, negligence or any culpable offence on the part of the staff concerned. In my judgment—this has also come out in some of the analyses of the events—it was due to the fact that some of the staff were exhausted, and that insufficient staff had been sent out with the rapid deployment teams. Those were organisational issues for which, ultimately, I take responsibility. I believe that the lessons have been learned. It does not follow that the only way to deal with the failure of a service is to sack people. If anyone commits a disciplinary offence, they should be—and are—disciplined. In this case, however, I know that some of the people concerned feel an intense personal responsibility for having let people down that will live with them for the rest of their careers. At the same time, many of the individual staff in Thailand who were criticised—there were not so many of them—have also received many bouquets from other members of the public for what they did. Overall, there were many more bouquets than there were brickbats. However, I accept that we let some families down, and I have unreservedly apologised. I am very sorry about that.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Foreign Secretary referred to people going abroad by choice. That choice is limited for some people, however, because of their employment. I remind him of the case of Jason Pope, my constituent, who was working in Angola, was sadly abducted and is believed to be deceased. Under the section on missing people, can guidance be given to embassies in countries such as Angola, where there is no effective police force, to be a little more robust and proactive in investigating such missing people, as, I believe, the US would be? Can the Department be slightly more accurate in the information that it gives with regard to presumption of death certificates? On the latter, may I ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have limited time, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has had a good bite of the cherry.

Jack Straw: I will follow up the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised. Our staff are robust with local authorities. We also go to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of the travel advice that we put on our website. However, following a change in policy in respect of travel advice, which was endorsed by both sides of the House, I am extremely reluctant, except in very exceptional circumstances, to say to British subjects that   they should not travel to particular countries. Our   responsibility is to offer advice. It is then a matter for individual travellers to make their own decisions about whether it is safe for them to travel.

Nigel Waterson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that most travel insurers have specific exclusions for terrorist acts? Does not that make the case stronger for extending the current availability of compensation for UK nationals, a case made compellingly by people such as my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Corke, who tragically lost their daughter Annalie in the Sharm el-Sheikh bombings?

Jack Straw: I acknowledge that many insurance policies currently exclude terrorism. As I have said, discussions with our consular directorate suggest that insurers are ready and willing to extend their cover—some are doing so—and I encourage them to do so. Although it is terrible when terrorist incidents occur, the number of British citizens who are casualties of those is very much smaller than the number caught up in road accidents, for example, for which insurance is easily available. That is the responsibility of insurers. That said, we have recognised, as is made clear on page 29 of the report, that in certain circumstances of terrorist incidents and other emergencies active support ought to be put in place, at an appropriate cost to the taxpayer, for victims or their families. We are considering whether we should provide extended compensation similar to the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

Crispin Blunt: Following the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) about the UK-US extradition treaty, can the Foreign Secretary go one better than passing on his concern to the Home Secretary, perhaps by informing the American Secretary of State on her visit to Blackburn that if the United States Congress is not prepared to address this issue, the Government might be minded to bring the matter back to Parliament for us to come to our conclusion about the view of the US Congress? Will he confirm that the whole cost of the additional measures that he has presented to the House today is covered under the consular premium in the cost of passports?

Jack Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, the answer is yes. On the first question, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in the lead on that matter, but I will go one better than waiting until Secretary Rice comes to the fine constituency of Blackburn and write to her in advance.

Adam Afriyie: I want to raise the case of my constituent, Mr Potter, who is currently in a secure prison in the US pending appeal, while his US counterpart is in a low-security prison and able to see his family regularly. It seems to me that the primary duty of the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Government is to defend British interests abroad. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House why the Government unilaterally signed away rights of British citizens with the extradition treaty, and what representations he has made on behalf of Mr. Potter to the US authorities?

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about Mr. Potter. As I have explained, the general issue of principle regarding the extradition treaty is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I can say that Mr. Potter was last visited by British officials on 14 December, and we facilitated his wife's visit at the end of January. We were told in February that his lawyers would lodge an appeal at the beginning of March. The director of the consular department in the Foreign Office is going to see Mr. Potter's supporters, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman himself, on 30 March.

Simon Hughes: Following other questions and in the light of his welcome announcement that he will consider a compensation package, will the Foreign Secretary take account of the experience of some other people who have suffered recently? Their son, Jeremy Lakin, was killed at Sharm el-Sheikh, and they had a series of really unsatisfactory experiences with officialdom in the United Kingdom and our people in Egypt, as well as with the Egyptian authorities. Is the Foreign Secretary willing either to meet them personally or to look at the file, and to ensure that their experience is dealt with and taken into account in any final announcement that he makes in the coming months?

Jack Straw: I shall be happy to examine the case, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Henry Bellingham: The Foreign Secretary said that he could not get people out of jail, but surely Her Majesty's Government can do their best to ensure that those who are incarcerated receive humane treatment. May I refer him to the case of Nicholas Baker, who is in Fuchu prison in Japan? Although he is not a constituent of mine, he has a number of relations in Norfolk. He has been systematically bullied by guards, deprived of food, proper clothing and bedding, and subjected to frostbite. I believed, somewhat naively, that such behaviour did not take place in modern Japan.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right: we have considerable responsibilities in respect of conditions in prisons. I do not know the details of that case, but I will look into them and follow them up, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Greg Hands: Along with other Members, I welcome the review. Probably hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents are abroad at any one time, especially on a Tuesday such as this. However, my question concerns an event that will take place in about 10 weeks' or three months' time: the World cup. Many thousands of English fans will travel to Germany. Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied with the level of consular assistance that he has laid on for an event that will take place very soon?

Jack Straw: Yes, I am satisfied with the level of consular assistance that will be available. We have built on a good deal of experience in respect of British fans abroad, not least following the riots of English fans in Charleroi in 2000 when I was Home Secretary. After those riots the House agreed on swift changes in the law, so that we could apply banning orders on known hooligans going abroad.
	I believe that about 80 British police officers will be deployed, along with many consular officials, and we are already providing a great deal of consular advice on the website and through the Football Association's England supporters club. I think that we shall be providing the maximum help, and that we shall be seen to be doing so. However, if there is disorder involving English fans, or others from the United Kingdom, the responsibility for that disorder is not a matter for the United Kingdom Government. Responsibility will lie with those individuals, who ought to be well-behaved abroad as they ought to be in this country.

Point of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), said in respect of NHS operations
	"no one waits more than six months". —[Official Report, 20 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 120.]
	Yet on 13 March, in reply to a parliamentary question, the same Minister stated that 74 people were waiting more than six months for their operations. Has the Minister of State given any indication that she will come to the House to make it clear which statement is correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been given no such notice, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue the argument that is clearly involved in some other way.

Bishops (Consecration of Women)

Andy Reed: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 so as to remove the bar on the consecration of women as bishops; and for connected purposes.
	It is not often that we get to debate such matters as the consecration of women bishops in this House; indeed, many colleagues have asked why on earth we are involved in such a decision in the first place. During my speech, I hope to explain how this Bill argues for Parliament's sending a clear signal to the General Synod about women bishops, and why it might provoke a discussion about our role in such matters in future.
	First, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who initially proposed this Bill. At that stage, I, along with other colleagues, was a humble sponsor of it. Unfortunately, his parliamentary role in the Department for Constitutional Affairs does not allow him to move such a measure, so I am delighted to pick up where he left off.
	It is a full 13 years since we were last asked to debate the ministry of women in the Church, and I am delighted to say that the vote then was overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the Church to ordain women priests. I hope that the House will be overwhelmingly in favour of women bishops today. However, 13 years ago we agreed to a compromise that left open the question of women bishops.
	As St. Paul said, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile,
	"neither bond nor free . . . neither male nor female: for all . . . are one in Christ Jesus."
	Well, not everyone agrees, of course. A former Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, once said that a woman was no more ordainable than a potato. I am not sure where he learned his interpersonal skills, but his theology seems horribly awry, too. Indeed, since studying this matter further for today, I have been overwhelmed by the number of spurious arguments against women bishops and priests masquerading as theology. I prefer the words of the Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini, who, when asked whether the Catholic Church would ever ordain women, said, with the wink of an eye, "Not in this millennium." That, of course, was in 1999.
	Despite the few who have campaigned vociferously against women's ministry, the truth is that the vast majority of ordinary members of the Church of England—and, for that matter, of the nation that it serves—agree that there should be no impediment to women in the Church. The Church's compromise Measures in 1993 allowed parishes to declare themselves women priest-free zones, yet fewer than one in 10 have done so. It is not just in Dibley that women priests are burying the dead, baptising the new-born, celebrating communion, counselling the sick and supporting the dying. In every one of our constituencies there are women clergy, many of whom are the most able of their generation.
	Half of those in training for ordination in each of the last three years have been women. Yet a full 13 years after they were allowed to enter the priesthood, women—who can be curates, vicars, rectors, chaplains and deans, and even rural deans and archdeacons—are still barred from being bishops. That is simply wrong. How can the Church preach equality when it institutionalises discrimination? Can anybody imagine the Church's refusing to have black or disabled bishops? Some 14 other provinces of the Anglican communion already allow women bishops, including Scotland. The Bench of Bishops supports the consecration of women, as do both Archbishops. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned only last night that Sudan already has women bishops. However, the earliest date that the Church is contemplating change is 2012. We can build for an Olympics in that time, yet the Church cannot move forward on this simple issue.
	Of course, there are Members who feel that it is none of our business whom the Church of England does or does not consecrate. Understandably, perhaps, they argue that the Church should govern itself. They probably also think that parliamentary questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) on behalf of the Church Commissioners is a quaint and irritating anachronism. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has found it useful to quiz the commissioners on their outrageous sale to the highest bidder of the Octavia hill estate in her constituency. But I accept that there is an argument that Parliament should not be able to tell the Church what to do on this issue; Indeed, I agree. We should not force the Church to consecrate women bishops; nor should we be able to do so through this Bill.
	However, while the relationship between Church and state remains as it is, we should use the mechanism before us to make our views known in full. We should be able to express our support for the role of women in every field of British life—to express our view, in the broadest terms, that women and men are equal, albeit different. We should be able to give voice to the many men and women in the Church who have been clamouring for this development for decades, and to declare our direct and personal support for the many women clergy in the Church. Many women clergy have called my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda in tears of gratitude. They believe that the Church is dragging its heels and listening far too attentively to its ultra-conservative wing, rather than to the mainstream. That certainly smacks of the ultra-conservative tail wagging the mainstream dog.
	So why are we in Parliament involved? From the outset, I want to make it clear that I am fully signed up to the principle of disestablishment between Church and state, but at present we are part of the decision-making process and, at some stage, will have to consider and vote on this issue. The problem for me is that the Church recently decided that the earliest date for that vote would be 2012. It is highly likely that those opposed to women bishops will use every tactic to fudge and delay any decision from Synod and that they will plead with hon. Members to block any such proposal. This Bill is a useful device for sending the clear message to Synod that we are here and that we have been waiting for further instruction since 1993. If the House approves the Bill, it will demonstrate that we are willing to consecrate women bishops as soon as we can.
	In a nutshell, that is all that I am asking for today—the clearest possible sign from Parliament that this end of the legislative food chain is ready to act. All we need is the chance to do so.
	Church of England Measures are the instruments by which changes are made to the governance and organisation of the Church. Once a Measure has been approved by the General Synod, the Ecclesiastical Committee—a Committee of both Houses of Parliament—considers whether it is expedient. If a Measure is considered expedient, both Houses are required to approve it before it can receive Royal Assent.
	Generally, motions to present any Measure for Royal Assent are debated in each House as soon as the Ecclesiastical Committee report is laid. Neither the motion itself nor the report can be amended, which means that the House of Commons cannot amend Measures as it can other Bills.
	There have been times in the past when this House has rejected such Measures. It happened with the Prayer Book Measure in 1927—which I hope that no one present today can remember—and as recently as 1989, when we rejected the Clergy (Ordination) Measure. The House may not be aware that, since 1992, we have passed 17 Church of England Measures. We rarely invoke the right to reject a Measure although, if a number of hon. Members feel strongly about its substance, a Measure will have no automatic right to proceed unhindered.
	Other hon. Members before me have rightly made the point that, although the House naturally does not wish unduly to interfere in the Church's self-governance, its agreement cannot be taken for granted. It has been said that the House
	"is not here simply to rubber-stamp anything the General Synod may lay before it".
	There was much debate on the 1993 Measure and Bill for the ordination of women. However, the Ecclesiastical Committee simply summarised the arguments on both sides and, unfortunately, seems to have given them equal weight. As hon. Members will know, there are nearly always two sides to most arguments, but muddle and compromise are not always the best option, as they prolong the agony and do not tackle the issue adequately. Compromise is good sometimes, but not always.
	The 1993 legislation legalised a muddled compromise to please a vociferous minority. The House of Bishops working party has recognised that that compromise is a continuing problem and has restarted the debate, but it is still at a preliminary stage only. This Bill represents a great opportunity to send the House of Bishops a message while its deliberations continue. That message is: we in this House are ready to change. As soon as the working party gets the Measure to the Ecclesiastical Committee, and that Committee produces its report, we are ready to endorse it for Royal Assent.
	That is not my view alone, as it shared by senior bishops. For example, one senior cleric wrote:
	"Although the House of Commons may not pre-empt decisions of the General Synod of the Church of England, the success of this Bill would be an important indicator of the support for the change as the Church's own decision making proceeds."
	Another bishop has written:
	"It is an excellent idea to have this particular debate, which seems to be a useful way of testing opinion in Westminster",
	and the Bishop of Worcester has said:
	"The fact is that those opposed will certainly take their fight to the Ecclesiastical Committee if they don't like the Measure that comes from General Synod, and it is therefore very important that the Commons should have indicated its view for the Committee's guidance".
	Some have even argued that this Bill could trigger "a church-state crisis", as one media headline put it. I had not realised that I could achieve so much in 10 minutes but, if that is one of the outcomes, it will be a useful contribution to the debate. The truth is that the House will not be legislating this afternoon, but it has an opportunity to send a simple message and declare its support for women's ministry at every level of the Church.
	I hope that all hon. Members—regardless of the state of their souls or, for that matter, of whether they believe that they have one—will seize that opportunity, vote in favour of the Bill and put and end to the stained-glass ceiling for women in the Church.

Patrick Cormack: Last week, I received a letter from the Bishop of Fulham, who is chairman of the very respected Anglican organisation, Forward in Faith. I am not a member, but I respect his point of view and those of his members. He wrote:
	"On behalf of my several thousand members—bishops, priests, lay women and lay men—all of whom find themselves unable for purely theological reasons to consent to the ordination of women, I write to ask you to find the time to be present in the Chamber and vote 'no' to"
	what he then thought was the Bill of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He continues:
	"I am certain that I do not need to point out that his initiative in this matter is contrary to the long-standing constitutional convention that Parliament does not initiate legislation on such matters. Further, as you will know, the Church, through its democratically elected General Synod, is already engaged in a careful consultation process which seeks to ensure that all views on this important issue are heard and respected."
	I ask the House to take the bishop's remarks seriously and to recognise that, although a large majority in the Church of England are in favour of what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) proposes, an honourable and significant minority take a different view. I was on the General Synod until last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) now sits on it. He and I take different views on this issue, but I respect him very much and I hope that the respect is reciprocated.
	I do not want to make a great issue of this. If the Church of England does move to consecrate women as bishops, I will probably be one of those who feel obliged to go elsewhere. We should remember that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which contain far the greatest majority of Christians in the world, take a different line on this—[Interruption.] Perhaps they will change in the fullness of time—I do not know. Nor do I say that I am right. I may be wrong—I do not know. I do not wish to divide the House. It is premature to have brought the measure forward. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rhondda, in a kind and courteous letter that he wrote to me last week, admitted as much, in that it probably pre-empts Synod. We should leave Synod to decide whether it wishes to bring a Measure and then we will have ample and proper opportunity to debate it.
	All that I would say to those present and particularly to women Members is that, as far as the Bishop of Fulham and his colleagues are concerned, this is not a matter of equality. It may be perceived as such by many, but this is a theological matter. He may be wrong. I may be wrong. It is just conceivable that the hon. Member for Loughborough may be wrong and I am glad that he acknowledges that. I hope that, in that spirit, we can move on to other business without dividing the House.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andy Reed, Robert Key, Mr. Tim Boswell, Simon Hughes, John Bercow, Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, Julie Morgan, Bob Russell, Susan Kramer, Stephen Hammond, Mrs. Ann Cryer and Barbara Keeley.

Bishops (Consecration of Women)

Mr. Andy Reed accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 so as to remove the bar on the consecration of women as bishops; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 151].

Armed Forces Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Don Touhig: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the establishment of a body whose primary function is to investigate matters relating to the mental or physical wellbeing of members of the armed forces or the operation of that body.
	The purpose of bringing forward the money resolution at this stage is to enable the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill to consider any amendment that might be tabled seeking to create a statutory body or an ombudsman to investigate certain complaints made by service personnel.
	This is a very important subject, and one on which the Defence Committee made a recommendation in its report on the duty of care, which was published on 14 March last year. The Government are not persuaded that that is the right way forward for our armed forces, and the Bill makes no provision for it. But we are keen to have an open debate about the issue. We have therefore tabled this resolution in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to enable proper debate in the Committee. Without the money resolution, we would not be able to debate the matter fully.
	The money resolution makes clear the proposed primary function of the independent ombudsman, and I think that it is drafted sufficiently widely for a full and informed debate in Committee. If it were agreed, the creation of such a body or ombudsman would give rise to additional costs from public funds. It is too early at this stage to estimate what those costs might be. None the less, we need this motion to allow a full debate. If it were agreed, the creation of such a body or ombudsman would give rise to additional costs from public funds. It is too early at this stage to estimate what those costs might be. None the less, we need this motion to allow a full debate in Committee, and I commend it to the House.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for proposing the motion. What he has said about the enabling nature of the motion is sensible, and very much in the spirit of the manner in which the Bill is being considered, which could well be applied to the consideration of other Bills. After Second Reading the Bill went not straight to a Standing Committee but to a special Select Committee, which has enabled us to take evidence from a wide range of people, including those who are in favour of the establishment of the kind of grievance redress arrangements to which the Minister referred. Like him, we are not persuaded that that is the best way to proceed for our armed forces, but the motion—if passed—will enable the Committee to examine the proposition publicly and in detail, which will add further to the authority of the Committee and the professional way in which the House has approached the Bill. It is therefore right that we should debate the matter, and that the motion should have been tabled.
	I would be keen to learn from the Minister whether the costs that might arise out of the arrangement have been quantified by the Department, given that he is not in favour of the establishment of an ombudsman—

David Davis: Are you?

Gerald Howarth: I am not in favour of an ombudsman, to answer my right hon. Friend who is chuntering from a sedentary position—

John Bercow: To great benefit, too!

Gerald Howarth: It is of course of great benefit to the House, as my hon. Friend points out.
	It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether any consideration has been given to the likely costs. As this is a money resolution, and as the Bill has implications for additional expenditure by the Department in the establishment of standing courts martial, and there is the possibility of increased litigation that might entail increased costs for the legal representation of members of the armed forces who end up in the dock, I wonder whether the Minister can give us any estimate today of the likely increases in the defence budget that might arise. That would be helpful, but if he cannot give us that information today, we quite understand that a letter may follow, as has been his custom on other occasions.
	We welcome the fact that the motion will facilitate further debate, and I look forward to joining the Minister in resisting a grievance procedure that would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's armed forces. I am delighted that in the spirit of co-operation between both sides of the House in areas on which we agree, I shall be able to make the Minister's task that much easier and perhaps make common cause against some of his Back Benchers, which may be developing into a bit of a habit—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and others that at this stage we are debating only the costs of the proposal rather than its merits.

Gerald Howarth: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was for the further elucidation of the House that I was seeking an undertaking from the Minister that he will provide us with some indication of what those costs might be. However, I have nothing further to add to the questions I have posed.

Joan Humble: I welcome both the motion and the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence about the importance of the issue to which it relates.
	The motion refers to
	"the establishment of a body whose primary function is to investigate matters relating to the mental or physical wellbeing of members of the armed forces or the operation of that body".
	The well-being of members of our armed forces is absolutely vital. They undertake a hugely important task in countries across the world, and we need to ensure that their well-being is properly safeguarded.
	The Armed Forces Bill, to which the motion relates, will give us all a valuable opportunity to address the vital issue of accountability and to ensure that when, sadly, deaths occur in the armed forces, they can be properly investigated. The Deepcut and Beyond families group will be looking for answers about the deaths of their children, and I hope that the money resolution will result in the setting up of an independent scrutiny body.I hear the Minister's remarks about his views on the possibility of an ombudsman, but I hope that he will listen to the voices of parents and families and take them into account.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady's speech follows that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who was sounding dangerously like a consensus politician a moment ago. The hon. Lady is obviously sympathetic to the establishment of an independent body. Has she any idea, in ball-park terms, of the capital and running costs that might be envisaged?

Joan Humble: There are such bodies in other countries. Canada has an independent ombudsman, and Germany and Australia are looking into the idea. There would be opportunities for the Ministry of Defence to look at the expenses in other countries. The important thing is to get this right. We have an opportunity once every five years to consider the armed forces and, in this Bill, issues relating to the operation of courts martial and inquiries. Our armed forces need the best possible focus for such things.
	On the sad occasions when something goes wrong, that needs proper investigation. I welcome the money resolution, and the fact that members of the Select Committee on Defence will have the opportunity to examine a vital issue in more detail. When it comes back to the Floor of the House, other Members, too, can engage in that important debate.

Bob Russell: This is a very narrow debate. I welcome the money resolution, as it will enable the Committee to use evidence from other countries to find out how such a proposal could be implemented in this country if that was the will of Parliament. However, it would be inappropriate for any member of the Committee to prejudge and pass personal comment before we have heard the evidence. Having served on the Committee, I am aware how important it is to maintain the ethos and the culture of the three armed forces alongside the need to harmonise the disciplinary procedures, but the money resolution will enable the Committee to widen the debate to find out whether other measures could assist Her Majesty's armed forces with those procedures. If the evidence that we find suggests that that is the way forward, so be it—but equally, if the evidence states that it would not be beneficial, we should not proceed. It would be inappropriate for any member of the Committee to pass judgment before the evidence has been heard.

Kevan Jones: I too welcome the money resolution, which will give the Committee the opportunity to discuss the very important issue that has just been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Having dealt with the Ministry of Defence over the past five years as a member of the Defence Committee, I find what the Minister refers to as constructive engagement rather strange; usually we just get a "No" from the MOD—so I thank him for proposing the money resolution.
	I am rather saddened by the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who clearly seems to have prejudged any debate that might take place in Committee. I thought that these days, he was a new Conservative, looking for consensus on issues about which people are clearly concerned in the wider community.
	Any such ombudsman or commission needs a narrow remit. It need not be a large organisation that will cost millions of pounds. We must remember that this is not the first time that such a recommendation has been made. The Defence Committee called for something similar in its report on the duty of care during the last Parliament. The independent review of armed forces manpower and career remuneration—the Bett report—recommended extending the terms of reference of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to allow the ombudsman to deal with complaints from service personnel about administration issues. That is important, and I hope that hon. Members will not say that such a proposal threatens the armed forces. Frankly, I think that it will help them to try to repair the damage to their reputation that has clearly been inflicted by some of the press coverage over the past few years.

Don Touhig: With permission, I should like to comment on the remarks that have been made today. I have already said that this is an unusual procedure. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asks how much the procedures that the money resolution will allow the Committee to consider would cost. We have not calculated any of the costs at this time, but as a guide it might be helpful to know that, although on a rather larger scale, the annual operating cost of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is about £70 million.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of the consensual way in which we have approached the Bill in Committee. I commend all members of the Committee for their work. He also mentioned that he might get another letter from me. When the Bill is finished with, my goodness me, I do not know what I will do—but I will not be writing any more letters to the hon. Gentleman. It will be gap in my life—and, no doubt, a gap in his—but I am sure that we will find other things on which to have exchanges.
	Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) says, the Bill addresses issues of accountability, but I am not tempted down the road that she suggests at the moment, because that is a matter for the Committee to debate. However, I am glad that she welcomes the provision that the money resolution will allow, and I share the view of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that we must await the debate in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), too, welcomed the money resolution. I make it clear to him that, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government are not persuaded of the need for an ombudsman or anything similar, but we are convinced of the need for a debate, and the money resolution will allow us to have that debate.

John Bercow: A number of references have been made to the special Committee, and within the space of a few minutes it has already become clear that in the Chamber are senior, important, very respected, influential and busy people who probably have many commitments and full diaries, who are sitting on that important Committee. I confess that I am not one of them; I was not asked. However, I am uncomfortable about the idea of a cosy private correspondence between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), so I simply ask the Minister whether he will allow other Members to be party to those exchanges. Can we have a copy of all such correspondence between him and my hon. Friend placed in the Library?

Don Touhig: We would need to extend the Library. However, I will ensure that my correspondence with the hon. Member for Aldershot is copied to members of the Committee, and I am sure that it can be made available to anyone else who needs it.
	The Government are responding to a formal request from the Chairman of the Select Committee to which the Armed Forces Bill has been committed to facilitate deliberations on one aspect of the Bill—the redress of complaints process. We are happy to do that, because we think that it is an important Bill for our armed forces and we are keen to have the debate on this issue. The Select Committee is appointed solely for the task of examining the Bill, and this approach has been used for considering successive Armed Forces Bills since 1955. We are engaged in that process now, and I trust the House will feel that there is merit in the resolution. I again commend it to the House, so that we can have the debate in Committee.
	Question put and agreed to.

Mark Lancaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on how I may make a correction to Hansard even though is not in my speech? I understand that Members have an obligation to check their own speeches. At column 48 yesterday, in response to an intervention, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) made light of my role as a bomb disposal officer and suggested that I had an interest in kinetics. However, Hansard reports this as though I have an interest in Qinetiq, the defence procurement company. I want to make it clear that I do not.

Dai Havard: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My intention was to make a humorous remark because the hon. Gentleman has family and business interests in fireworks companies. The lesson, I suppose, is that humour is explosive and can backfire. I have asked Hansard to make the correction; we discussed it this morning. I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman for any unintentional consequences or inconvenience.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It sounds as though the correction will be made. I should inform hon. Members that they can always write to the editor of Hansard to make sure that such corrections are made.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Identity Cards Bill

Consideration of Lords message [20 March]
	Lords reasons: 22G and 22H

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its Amendments 22E and 22F but disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 22G and 22H.
	I should say, first, that I am very pleased that their lordships have now dropped their outright opposition to the designation power in the Bill by dropping their previous amendments Nos. 16 and 22. That is very good news and an important development. However, the amendments in lieu are not a real compromise as they would simply delay the power to link the issue of identity cards to designated documents, such as passports, until 2012. That is unacceptable and it would not be right to allow the other place to delay the implementation of legislation that it dislikes until five years have passed. That is a deliberate plan for delay and destruction of the process in the Identity Cards Bill.
	This is the fourth time that this issue has come back to us from the other place and I submit that this really should be the last time. Although we might not expect to phase in the introduction of identity cards to all categories of passport applicants straight away, any constraint on designation would create uncertainties in our planning and a risk of additional costs. In line with other European Union countries, we expect to start the issuing of biometric British passports, including fingerprints, by 2009.
	Without the requirement for recipients of designated documents, such as biometric passports, to register on the national identity register, to be issued with an identity card and to get the protections that the national identity register offers, we would have to provide for two alternative processes with separate records for those who choose to register and those who choose not to register. Such a purely artificial deadline would create real problems for the phasing of the scheme, which would be bound to have an impact on costs. The real   intention behind the amendments is to make the scheme unworkable by fuelling uncertainty about its implementation.
	We are also likely to start issuing biometric residence permits to foreign nationals who are temporarily resident here at about the same time—in 2008 or 2009. Again, without the requirement for designation and registration on the national identity register, foreign nationals could opt out of the scheme and we would be forced to maintain separate records for those who opted in and those who opted out of the register. The plans for the ID cards process are predicated on the introduction of a single, seamless process for issuing passports and identity cards as a single package.
	Parliament has spent many hours debating the Bill. Leaving aside the discussion on the draft Bill and the substantial debate on the earlier Bill that was introduced before the election, we spent some 39 hours discussing this Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee before passing it to the other place in October. The Committee stage involved 11 sittings over seven days. The other place scrutinised the Bill over all its stages for a total of 61 hours, including six days in Committee and three days on Report. Since then, a further 15 hours of parliamentary time have been taken up as each House has considered the other's amendments and reasons. I suggest that it would be inappropriate, and a waste of parliamentary time, for the Opposition in the other place to try to force the Government to use the Parliament Act. Moreover, to suggest that we should wait six years before we are able to implement the Bill is not a compromise in any respect.
	I welcomed the helpful intervention that was made during yesterday's debate in the other place by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. He suggested that it might be a compromise between the positions of the Government and the Opposition if the Bill provided for an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, for people applying for a designated document such as a passport. I understand the reasoning behind Lord Armstrong's proposal and am very grateful to him for his efforts to help to resolve the impasse. However, I have to say that while I agree that an opt-out might well make more sense than an opt-in, the reality would be the same. We would still be introducing a large degree of uncertainty into the plans for rolling out identity cards linked to passports.
	Perhaps I can also emphasise the fact that, as I have already made clear in debates in the House, anyone who feels strongly enough about the linkage not to want to be issued with an ID card in the initial phase will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new passport before the designation order takes effect. Although I doubt whether many people would want to avoid the opportunity of obtaining an ID card when renewing their passport, the facility will be available. I hope that Lord Armstrong will consider those points before deciding whether to table further amendments in another place.
	In fact, I believe that the moment for such a suggestion has passed because it appears that the Opposition have moved beyond their outright resistance to the designation powers in the Bill—the latest Lords amendments accept the principle of designation. The argument now is simply about whether the powers should be available straight away, or whether an artificial delay should be imposed.
	I understand the position of the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the other place, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has at least been consistent in opposing the Bill because of his party's avowed dislike of identity cards in principle.
	The position of the Conservative Opposition, both here and in the other place, is more complicated. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was leading his party, he said in an article in The Daily Telegraph on 20 December 2004, which was less than six months before the general election:
	"We must protect our citizens in every way we can and in my judgement that includes ID cards".
	On Second Reading of the original Bill on 20 December 2004—again, less than six months before the general election was called—the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that
	"it is incumbent on all of us to examine carefully any measures which might enhance the nation's security. Identity cards introduced properly and effectively may help to do that."—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1953.]
	The Conservative Opposition have since flip-flopped this way and that on identity cards. They have voted for identity cards, abstained and voted against them. They decided not to mention identity cards at all in their election manifesto. However, it now appears—I welcome this—that they accept the principle of linking the issue of identity cards to designated documents such as passports.
	On 18 March, The Times reported Conservative party sources as saying that they wanted the delay added to the designation powers, so that if the Conservatives were to win the next election they would have time to repeal the legislation. That report may have been inaccurate, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will have something to say about that.
	I note with interest that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Lord Strathclyde, was not prepared to commit his party to such a stance. In response to an intervention by my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, he said:
	"She knows of our opposition to this legislation and to the whole principle of ID cards. What our position will be at the next election, I cannot tell."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 38.]
	That sums up the problem. Lord Strathclyde was not prepared to commit his party to such a stance and refused to confirm whether his party will be committed to reversing the ID card provisions at the next election.
	As the Conservative party seeks to use its entrenched vote in the Lords to frustrate the will of the elected House, I urge it to think again given the deep inconsistencies in its position throughout the whole debate.

John Bercow: Notwithstanding the advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), a number of my hon. Friends and I have been very consistent in opposing the introduction of identity cards. We voted against the original Second Reading on 20 December 2004 and on each and every subsequent occasion. Our position is explicit, clear and unmistakable, and it will not change.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that that has been his position and that of a number of Conservative Members. However, it has not been the position adopted by Conservative Front Benchers, which is what I was pointing out. The country judges the position of Conservative Front Benchers in elections and at other times, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that while some Conservative Members have been consistent, Conservative Front Benchers have displayed no consistency whatsoever.

William Cash: Does the Home Secretary agree that it was apparent on Second Reading that the policy advocated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was geared to the question of compulsion? When my right hon. and learned Friend was Home Secretary, he adopted a policy on a voluntary scheme, so our current policy is entirely consistent with the views that he originally adopted.

Charles Clarke: I will not go through what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe might or might not have done when he was Home Secretary, but I will quote what he said on 20 December 2004 as Leader of the Opposition:
	"We must protect our citizens in every way we can and in my judgement that includes ID cards".
	He said that less than six months before the general election.
	Of course the Government will listen and reflect on what is said, but I must repeat that we cannot accept Lords amendments Nos. 22G and 22H, which would undermine the basis of the planned identity cards scheme just as much as the earlier Lords amendments that this House rejected.

Edward Garnier: May I begin by apologising on behalf of the shadow Home Secretary, who cannot be here because of a meeting of the shadow Cabinet? No doubt he will be here as soon as he can.
	May I clear up three little points that the Home Secretary endeavoured to make at the end of his remarks? He said that we have had quite enough debate about the issue for now—there were 39 hours of discussion in the   Commons before the Identity Cards Bill went to the Lords—but he did not condescend to tell us that the debates in Committee on designation and compulsion by stealth were time-limited. The Government imposed knives in Committee, and they have applied the rules of the House, which are in their gift, to impose time limits on these debates, too.

Nick Palmer: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, we both served on that Committee. The Opposition did not, in fact, use a great deal of the time available. Will he comment on that?

Edward Garnier: I will not do so, save to say that I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
	The Home Secretary said that the argument was all about designation, and that we had exhausted that debate, bringing matters to a necessary conclusion. I hesitate to say that he has done so deliberately, but he has confused a debate about designated documents per se with one about compulsion by stealth. The kernel of the debate, which he does not want to address, is whether it is appropriate for the Government to stand at the general election on a manifesto that says one thing, then to seek to railroad a measure through the House—and, by threats and others means, to do so in the other place, too—thus avoiding the central issue of compulsion by stealth.
	The Government accept that there should be express compulsion by primary legislation for the 20 per cent. of the public who do not hold a passport, but they find it extremely difficult to get their heads around the fact—and it is only logical that they should do so if there is to be any consistency in the application of their thinking—that there should be a plain and clear statement of their intention to introduce compulsion through designated documents either by a voluntary arrangement, which they advocated at the general election, or by another piece of primary legislation. Of course, they do not have the intellectual or the political courage, let alone the self-confidence, to advance that argument, because they know that it would not attract public support, still less support from anyone else.
	The Home Secretary's final and most desperate throw was to rely on the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who had supported identity cards. Again, that allows the Government to fall into a trap of their own making. They would like us to forget that the Bill is not primarily about identity cards but about the national identity register. If they were intellectually honest and confident about their policy they would have called the Identity Cards Bill the national identity register Bill. People would therefore understand that they wish to compel them, either through primary legislation, which we have yet to see, for the 20 per cent., or by stealth via designated documents, to supply information to a vast Government computer, which will be a huge bucket into which other Government agencies and, indeed, private companies can dip. We cannot audit the register's activities and trawls, as that is prohibited by the Bill. It therefore does the Home Secretary little credit to seek to rely on my right hon. and learned Friend.
	When the current Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition shortly before the 1997 election—we remember that, but perhaps the Home Secretary does not—he clearly opposed identity cards, which he thought were a waste of money and an invasion of civil liberties. He did not think that the Labour party could possibly countenance them under his leadership. I cannot imagine what has happened to him since, but as public confidence in what the Labour party says and does is at an all-time low, it behoves the Government, having been elected on a manifesto, to adhere to their promises.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who is presenting his case in the characteristically understated fashion for which he is renowned and respected throughout the House. Would he care to remind the House that when the current Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition he specifically said that he rejected the idea of compulsory ID cards, which he dismissed as something demanded by the Tory right?

Edward Garnier: rose—

John Bercow: That was then—this is now.

William Cash: This is the Tory left.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we have one debate across the Floor of the House?

Edward Garnier: Let me assist you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and I are wholly at one in our appreciation of the Prime Minister's skills. They ought to be trumpeted up and down the country. He is a master at saying one thing and meaning another.
	On the last occasion when we debated the matter in the House, there was a rather unfortunate intervention from the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove), who laid claim to having written the relevant passage of the Labour party manifesto. She was rather proud of it at the time, but perhaps she did not realise what she was doing. The Home Secretary may not have been keen that she should continue to take part in these debates—I do not see her in the Chamber today.
	Let me remind the House—it is well worth doing so as frequently as we can—precisely what the Labour party said in its manifesto. It stated that it
	"will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports."
	It does not take much knowledge of the English language and its syntax to realise that the expression "on a voluntary basis" governs the phrase "will introduce ID cards".
	I shall explain the position in simple language to those on the Government Front Bench. They promised the British public at the last election that they would introduce ID cards on a voluntary basis as people renewed their passports. What they now propose, for which the other place is holding the Government to account, is compulsory registration on the national identity register, incidentally to get an identity card, by stealth—by some underhand secret method. [Interruption.]
	I know that manifestos are a matter of great amusement to the Government, but if the Government had intended that the public should understand that the policy on which they wanted to be re-elected was, "We will introduce a compulsory system whereby, when you renew your passport or some other designated document, the list of which is yet to be defined, you will be registered on the national identity register", they would have said it.
	I hope the hon. Member for South Swindon, who is not present, will forgive me, but it seems to me that that section of the Labour party manifesto was written by a fool or a knave—a knave if it was intended to mislead or confuse, or a fool if it resulted from a failure to understand the ordinary meaning of those simple English words. I do not mind which it is, but either way the British public elected the Government under a false prospectus.

Andrew Love: Earlier the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was at one with the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Yesterday in the House that hon. Gentleman reaffirmed his commitment to a totally elected second chamber. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have any concerns that an unelected and unaccountable House should continue to pressurise this House as much as it has done?

Edward Garnier: I might do, if the other place in its current constitutional get-up was not a creation of the Government and the Prime Minister, but since it is a creation of the Government and the Prime Minister, and since its current state is entirely supported by people such as the hon. Gentleman, who leapt through the Division Lobby with great alacrity to see the House of Lords turn into a creation of—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the amendments under discussion? Perhaps he will confine his remarks to the amendments, not manifestos.

Edward Garnier: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, I respect everything that you say and the admonition that you give me. I may have used a word that the Home Secretary does not wish to hear or understand, but that is not the point. He will have to come to terms with the fact that we have a bicameral constitutional arrangement. It is entirely proper for the other place to present these amendments to this House, and all the more proper given that the other place is a creation of this Government. Having set up this new House of Lords, it is simply not good enough for them to complain when it sends back legislation in a form that they do not like. They should have thought about that before they mucked around with it.
	On amendments Nos. 22G and 22H, which Ministers may or may not have read, it is important to point out that when we last debated this the Home Secretary was chuntering to the effect that the majority of Cross Benchers did not support the majority of 36 in favour of those amendments. Well, I have news for him. That majority contained within it a majority of Cross Benchers, so he has shot his own fox, if I may use an allusion that may be of interest to him.
	The House of Lords has presented to this House two sets of amendments that would delay the onset of compulsion until after 31 December 2011. That entirely complies with the Labour party's manifesto on which it was elected at the last election. It would preserve precisely what that manifesto required—the rolling out of ID cards on a voluntary basis—by allowing members of the public who so wish to enrol their details on to the national identity register in order to receive an identity card prior to that time. The House of Lords is doing no more than what the Labour party promised the public that it was about at that time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already indicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been sufficient discussion of party manifestos. I hope that hon. Members will now address their remarks to the amendments before the House.

Edward Garnier: If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is extremely difficult, given that these amendments are about whether compulsion by stealth should be introduced with this Bill or at a later stage, not to place that in the context upon which the Government rely, as they did on the previous occasion and in the other House—namely, their manifesto.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I agree. I think that I have allowed reference to that background. I would now like us to discuss the amendments before the House.

Edward Garnier: Well, there we are.
	The amendments would delay—properly, because they are in line with the Government's policy as advertised—compulsion by stealth, or by express primary legislation, until after 31 December 2011. No Labour Member who has any understanding of the English language, or of the meaning of the words "promise" or "voluntary", can possibly complain about what the other place has introduced into the Bill.

William Cash: I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend is going to come to this, but does he think that the Home Secretary reached a point where he would be so dismissive of the arguments that have come from the other House that it might be appropriate for that House to insist on the Parliament Act?

Edward Garnier: I shall leave that to the other place. I am arguing in support of the other place's amendments—22G and 22H. Whether we get to a stage when the Parliament Act has to be employed is largely a matter for the majority in this House, although it is technically a matter for the Speaker. The Parliament Act is sometimes operated when the Government decide that they cannot have their way by any other means, as happened before the previous general election.
	The Government have presented the argument here and in the other place that, if we are to have a bifurcated system—a voluntary and a compulsory system—which the Labour party advocated at the election, we would have to expend much more money. The Home Secretary said that it would have implications for procurement. I am not sure that that is a good reason for overturning the relationship between the citizen and the state. I do not believe that the age-old system that allows us, the citizens, to walk the streets without being compelled to do something at the state's behest should be overturned or trumped by claiming that it would create all sorts ofprocurement implications. It may well create implications for the Government's IT procurement system—we know the history of IT procurement for Home Office projects and others. It is therefore unsurprising that they are worried about that. However, that is not an argument for overturning the constitutional proprieties.
	The Government might have a better case if they condescended to tell us what they believed the costs of the exercise would be. Their claim about the additional costs that the amendments would impose on the taxpayer would be more understandable if they condescended to tell us what they are. However, all they do is ritualistically repeat their abuse of the House of Lords or anyone—at the London School of Economics, on the Conservative Benches, on the Liberal Democrat Benches or even on the Labour Benches—who dares to contradict the assertions that they make without evidence. That is no way to run a Government or conduct an argument in favour of overturning the amendments.
	No evidence exists to show that a delay in compulsion would necessarily be more costly than the proposals for immediate compulsion. A series of less expensive, smaller scale trials and pilots would cost far less than is currently projected in the early phases of development and would inform refinements to the specification, which will help to achieve best value in the longer term.
	It is also clear that, if the focus of the scheme's planning and development shifted towards developing and selling the benefits of the scheme as a tool for the citizen, voluntary take-up could substantially eclipse that by compulsion. If compulsion by stealth is so good and so popular, why do not the Government have the self-confidence to try voluntary take-up? If the public are sufficiently attracted and follow the arguments on cost, they will flock into the gulags and processing places so that their information can be put on the national identity register.

John Bercow: Irrespective of the number of people who come forward—in the first instance and for some time—to renew their passports, what is my hon. and learned Friend's assessment of the costs that the Government will incur as a result of proceeding with a plan for a massive new set of high street locations under the auspices of the great empire builder, Mr. Bernard Herdan, at which the transactions will take place? The sums of money will be huge. I do not know whether the Home Secretary realises it or whether he has been hoodwinked, but it will cost big time.

Edward Garnier: There is no question about it—it will cost a lot of money. The overall costs of the scheme range from, according to the Government's figures, something towards the top end of £8 billion, to the LSE's figures of between £19 billion to £22 billion. I have asked written parliamentary questions about the high street readers, which will be based in Department for Work and Pensions offices and those of other agencies, perhaps in hospitals and so on. I cannot guarantee to be accurate but, from memory, each individual reader machine will cost approximately £3,000. One can multiply that to get the total figure.

Charles Clarke: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the word "gulag"? To suggest that the identification process will be equivalent to a concentration camp or gulag is an abuse of language, and he has been very careful to attack us for the abuse of language in various ways. Will he now take the opportunity to withdraw the word?

Edward Garnier: I had not appreciated that the Home Secretary was such a sensitive flower. I used the word "gulag" as shorthand for the processing process and for the construction of centres to which members of the public will have to come to have their details taken before they are submitted into this Government bucket, but if it was too aggressive an expression, of course I withdraw it. I trust that the Home Secretary will now be able to concentrate on the poverty of his own arguments rather than worrying about the language that I have used.
	A delay in the implementation of compulsion will provide more scope to build a system that is technologically feasible and that has the utility to justify its costs. We are asking for intellectual integrity, and for a cohesive policy that will stand up to public examination. The other place has given the proposals that examination, as should this House. The Government do not deserve a blank cheque or a free pass. It is incumbent on us, as Members of Parliament representing constituents of all political parties and of none, not simply to roll over and grovel when the Government say that we must have this, that or the other. It is our job to examine everything that the Government do—allegedly in our name—and if we disapprove of it, to say so and, more importantly, to vote against it. I urge the House to support the Lords in their amendments Nos. 22G and 22H.

Nick Palmer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his earlier remarks, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that he completely disagreed with the assertion that the Opposition had not taken all the time available to the Committee. I wonder whether you would now like to give him the opportunity to avoid misleading the House on that. I have the relevant copy of Hansard here, in which your colleague, the Chairman of the Committee, says, perhaps a little sarcastically, that
	"for reasons I cannot even begin to contemplate, the Committee wants to complete its proceedings in this sitting."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 July 2005; c. 423.]
	That is, one sitting earlier than necessary.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate, rather than a point of order for the Chair.

Edward Garnier: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Had I thought that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was worthy of any form of sensible reply, I would have given it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order. May I remind hon. Members of the assertion in "Erskine May" that "good temper and moderation" should be the hallmark of our debates? Perhaps we should all remember that.

David Winnick: I shall certainly try to remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am perhaps not the best person to persuade the Home Secretary to look at this matter again. I have opposed identity cards from the start, and I am sure that he is not going to take much notice of what I am going to say now. However, we shall reach agreement on one point. It is nonsense to say that if the scheme comes into operation there will be gulags and concentration camps. Our European partners have identity cards, and they are not police states. We are very pleased that they are fellow democracies. So let us continue to debate this subject without exaggeration.
	By and large, I believe that the views of this Chamber should always prevail over those of the House of Lords. I hold that view even more strongly when the House of Lords votes down a measure that I happen to support. But on a general constitutional level, I do not believe that it would be wrong to continue to adhere to that principle, although there must be exceptions. Although this is a constitutional issue, and although I feel as strongly as their lordships in the majority, I have abstained on previous occasions after voting against the Bill on Second Reading. I shall continue to follow that line; I shall abstain when we vote on this proposition later.
	On the substance of the matter, however—and without going into the issue of election manifestos—I am worried that, if the Government have their way, we shall have a scheme in which anyone who renews their passport after a certain date will automatically have their name entered on the national identity register. That is what I object to. Many law-abiding people are opposed to identity cards and having their names on the national identity register. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not disagree that there are people—although we might disagree about the numbers—who have such strong views and who see no reason why they should renew their passport before the due time.
	Those are the sort of people who, if there is primary legislation in due course in which Parliament decides that there should be a compulsory scheme, would accept the law. They have no desire to be fined, not to pay those fines, to go to prison and be a martyr. However much they object, they accept that Parliament is the decisive policy maker. What they disagree to, which is the reason that I cannot support the Government, is that it is intended that people will automatically go on the identity register once they renew their passport, without Parliament deciding that there should be a compulsory scheme. That is the reason for a lot of disquiet.
	I hope—I doubt it, but I am ever optimistic—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be willing to seek a compromise rather than stand absolutely firm as he has done today. If the Government's position is upheld tonight and they have a majority, as I have no doubt that they will, the Lords might give way following that decision. They have done so on other issues, and they might do so on this one. If they do not, however, I hope, as I have already mentioned, that the Home Secretary will be willing to see what compromise can be reached. It would be totally inappropriate for the Parliament Act to be invoked on this measure.

Gavin Strang: All right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches agree with the general proposition that we expect the elected House of Commons to have primacy in general terms. The fact is, however, that the other place is giving us the opportunity to reconsider this fundamental issue carefully. There are important issues in relation to the passport matter, and I think that the French are having a little difficulty. I would have thought that that was a strong case for getting the biometrics and the passport operating properly before we move on.

David Winnick: I understand that, and I hope that my right hon. Friend also understands the principle involved and the concerns expressed on several occasions.
	To conclude, if the Lords refuse to give way, there should be fresh consideration by the Government, and the Parliament Act should not be used.

Nicholas Clegg: The Home Secretary has rejected amendments Nos. 22G and 22H from the other place, claiming, if I understand correctly, that they are not serious compromises. I wonder why that is, because any cool and objective assessment of the amendments would suggest that they are very serious compromises indeed. Let me highlight three reasons for that.
	First, the amendments are a major concession of principle from those who objected to identity cards and their compulsory introduction, because opponents accept for the first time that they will become compulsory, but according to a deferred timetable. That has been a painful and difficult decision for those who have a long track record of opposing the Bill out of principle. The Home Secretary's dismissal of the seriousness of that concession does not do justice to their deliberations.
	Secondly, it is simply implausible to suggest that the amendments would cause huge practical problems. All that they suggest is a deferral from 2009, which would be the first full year of operation of the ID card scheme, to the end of 2011, 18 to 24 months later. Nothing that we have heard today suggests that that shift of a few months poses enormous complexities and practical problems for the Government.
	Thirdly, I should have thought that, from the Government's point of view, these compromise amendments would be a good deal better than some of the other compromise amendments that are doing the rounds. During the debate in the other place, Lord Armstrong referred explicitly to the possibility that, when the Bill returned there, he would table amendments inserting a complete opt-out for those who do not want to subscribe to the identity card scheme at all. That would blow a hole in the Bill that would surely be much more serious for the Government than these measured amendments. They represent a major compromise, undertaken in a spirit of careful deliberation over where the two sides may meet on this difficult issue. They are practical, they will not lead to insuperable obstacles, and they are certainly better than the alternatives that may now be debated in the other place.
	The Home Secretary said that the amendments would introduce uncertainty, delay and extra costs. I do not see what is uncertain about a date, 31 December 2011. That seems to me very certain and very precise. The date is a little further away than what is envisaged in the much vaguer timetable that the Government appear to have in mind, but there is nothing uncertain about it. Yes, it involves a delay, but a modest delay that has been mooted with the aim of securing a reasonable compromise. As for the costs, it is impossible to test the assertion that the amendments would lead to extra costs, because the scheme has not been properly costed by the Government and we have not yet been given a detailed account of what the costs would cover. The costs that have been floated have been summarily rejected and called into question by independent analysts, not least in the London School of Economics, which recently suggested that in its first 10 years of operation the scheme would run up a whopping £1.8 billion deficit.

Peter Bone: The Government's record on major IT projects is currently pretty dreadful. The longer the scheme is put off, the better the Government may become at such projects. The delay may therefore result in considerable savings.

Nicholas Clegg: Given the almost draconian enormity of the scheme, I should have thought that the Government would leap at the chance of having a bit more time in which to work out the practicalities and the costs, given that they are shamefully vague about both at present. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, which merely reinforces my feeling that the amendments, as well as representing a serious political compromise, offer a practical way forward.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman see any contradiction between his party's position in respect of a democratically elected second Chamber and the fact that these so-called compromise amendments result from the fourth opportunity that the House of Lords has taken to ask the House of Commons to change its mind?

Nicholas Clegg: The other place is entirely within its rights in rejecting an attempt by the Government to impose compulsion by stealth in the name of voluntarism. The nub of the problem is that every Member of both Houses is being asked to indulge in doublespeak whereby "voluntary" mutates into "compulsory". Surely they are within their rights in saying that that will not happen in their name.
	The final merit and virtue of the amendments is that they would allow the electorate to have another look at the issue, and to judge whether the Government have been straightforward in their acrobatics. As I have said, the commitment in Labour's last manifesto to a voluntary introduction of identity cards has miraculously re-emerged as an introduction of identity cards by compulsion. If the Government accepted the amendments, at least the voters would be able to decide what is voluntary and what is compulsory. I hope that common sense would prevail when they read the extraordinarily ambiguous doublespeak in that manifesto.

Simon Hughes: I speak as one who has been implacably opposed to identity cards throughout his political life. Is not the great benefit of these proposals that if the Government insisted that they wanted to introduce the cards, they would have to go to the country with an absolutely clear proposition, given the trouble that they have got into in the past year? Meanwhile, the rest of us could go to the country with an entirely different proposition. It could become a real issue, with the public realising that there was a real choice, and—I would hope—it could provide another very good reason for the public to reject an increasingly authoritarian Government.

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Giving voters the opportunity to make up their own minds at the next general election is a more democratic and accountable way of resolving this issue than resorting to the semantics to which this Government have subjected us for so long.
	The Home Secretary is insisting on rejecting amendments that, as I have tried to explain, are serious in their political intent, and which are real, practical compromises that are better than any of the alternatives. In the absence of any clear justification for such rejection, I join those who urge Members in all parts of the House to support Lords amendments Nos. 22G and 22H.

George Howarth: When the Conservatives cry "Freedom!", it usually means one of two things: either the French are about to invade us, or the Conservatives cannot rely on their arguments, which are usually quite weak on such issues. Having listened to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I believe that today is a case of the latter. He and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) have made a great deal of what was said in the Labour party manifesto. I do not intend to go too far down that road, but it seems that the Lords' justification for continuing to delay this process is that the manifesto in some way contradicts the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough quoted the words that he thinks are ambiguous, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam accused us, in relying on those words, of indulging in semantics. The quotation that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough gave—it was an accurate one—is that the scheme will be introduced
	"on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports."

Simon Hughes: On a "voluntary" basis.

George Howarth: Yes, as people renew their passports. As I said when we debated this issue just over a week ago, the voluntary principle is based on the idea that people voluntarily take out a passport. [Interruption.] There is no compulsion. [Interruption.] I accept that there may well be very good reasons why people need to have a passport, but the process itself—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) wish to make an intervention.

Edward Garnier: No, Madam.

George Howarth: If the hon. and learned Gentleman did wish to make an intervention, I would gladly accept it, but he obviously does not have a point to make.

Edward Garnier: It is an old filth's trick to quote selectively. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted that my quotation was accurate. If he reads the whole of the passage that I referred to, it is quite clear that the voluntary roll-out refers to the introduction of the ID card scheme. Nobody in their right mind could possibly argue the case that he is arguing; he really ought to apply his mind to the whole of the phrase used.

George Howarth: I have read the whole of that section of the manifesto; in fact, I took the trouble to read it before the general election, and I would have supported a compulsory scheme in any event. The hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly selectively quoted from the manifesto, purely to justify the ongoing ping-pong with another place over that passage's precise meaning. There is no justification for his continuing to do so, and still less for an unelected House's continuing to do so.

Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Howarth: No; if I conclude my remarks, somebody else might be able to speak; indeed, the hon. Gentleman might be able to.
	The second game of semantics that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough engaged in today involved quoting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary in the 1990s, saying that he was opposed to the introduction of an identity cards Bill. The implication is that my right hon. Friend changed his mind on this issue when he came into government. That is partly true, but it was not true between 1997 and 1999, when I was a junior Home Office Minister. I have good reason to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was still opposed to the introduction of identity cards during that period. Opposition Members must ask themselves what has happened in the meantime to make him and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believe that the time is now right for their introduction.
	The world has changed enormously since that time. We have seen huge changes in mass migration around the world, and the rise of Islamist terrorism. The events of 9/11 constituted the worst example of that terrorism, and last summer's London bombings the most recent. That is why people feel that the time is right to introduce identity cards.
	It stretches the imagination too far to claim that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Home Secretary want to introduce identity cards for a reason entirely different from what has been claimed. The world has changed and, for my part, I would support the introduction of compulsory identity cards. However, the proposals in the Bill will at least give us an opportunity to challenge people to prove that they are who they say that they are.

William Cash: In respect of the process of discussion involving the Lords and the Commons, I have observed that, although we in this House sometimes get cut out on the pong, we occasionally get an opportunity to speak on the ping.
	I want to put it on record that I object strongly to the compulsory aspect of the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), I voted on Second Reading in the absolute certainty that that was the wrong way to go. This is a constitutional issue of the first order, and I believe that the Government, if they are intransigent on the matter, must use the Parliament Acts to get their proposals through.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) said that the electorate should decide this matter, and that that the Lords will not insist on the amendment proposing that the introduction of identity cards should be held over until 31 December 2011. If he is right—and we on the Back Benches are not privy to those discussions—the effect will be to allow the voluntary arrangements to go through.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The amendments are crystal clear, and would defer the power to identify designated documents until 31 December 2011—in other words, until after the next general election.

William Cash: I still have grave reservations about the infringement of the principle involved.
	The Bill will mean that some people will be affected by the compulsory arrangements, while others will be covered by the framework of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I belong to yet another group of people, as I have just applied for a new passport and driving licence to replace documents that were stolen. It appears that I would be outside the arrangements, either way. The provisions in the Bill deal with terrorism and other very important matters, so it is invidious that certain elements of the population will be covered by the proposed arrangements, and that others will not.
	I end by saying that, for me, the bottom line is that the Government's proposals amount to an unsatisfactory and hybrid compulsory arrangement that we ought to reject. In the House of Lords, the question of the Salisbury convention was disposed of by Baroness Anelay, and the Home Secretary did not mention it again today. A principle of huge constitutional importance lies at the heart of the Bill. I shall be voting against the proposals, as I believe that they should be resisted at all costs.

Mark Fisher: I think that Members on both sides of the House agree that it is not satisfactory continually to be debating this matter. This is the third time in the course of the past week. The Home Secretary must accept that there is a strong feeling on both sides of the House and both sides of the argument that this is, essentially, a surrogate compulsory Bill and we need to clarify that. Those of us who believe that the scheme should be voluntary should have the chance to put their case and the Home Secretary, who I think in his heart believes in a universal, compulsory card, should clarify that.
	We have to find a compromise. Over the past week, the other place has come up with different suggestions. With amendments Nos. 22G and 22H, it has provided yet another one. I do not think that this suggestion—I am talking about the delay—is one of their better ones, but it is an attempt to find a compromise. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) said, it has some merits. It would allow a little more time to assess how the scheme is proceeding and it would give the public the opportunity to consider the matter again. As democrats, how can we resist either of those things? I would prefer Lord Armstrong's suggestion of an opt-out clause, but there are other compromises, as well.
	In the case of all those compromises, we have not yet had any movement from the Government. If they want to resolve the matter, as they should and as they must, they must make some gesture. The idea of negotiations across the two Houses and across the Chamber requires both sides to show some flexibility. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is murmuring on the Front Bench.

Charles Clarke: The fact is that the Government have made a large number of compromises, not least, for example, in relation to having full-scale primary legislation before going compulsory. A whole string of them relate to cost. We have been compromising all the way.

Mark Fisher: Not in the past week. The Home Secretary is understandably complaining that the other place and those of us who support it in its amendments are being perverse and stubborn, but, in the past week, the Government's position has not moved.

David Heath: Is it not at least arguable in constitutional terms that the other place is preserving the principle of the Salisbury convention by holding the Government to the manifesto promise that the ID card would be voluntary?

Mark Fisher: There are all sorts of variations on who is being more flexible. The truth is that there is a difference of opinion between having a low-tech, low-cost voluntary card and a high-tech, high-cost compulsory card that is rooted in the register. The House and the public ought to have the chance to resolve that. This way of trying to nudge up to and sidle round a compromise is not satisfactory. Let us get to the nub of the question. If the Home Secretary will not enable us to do that, he must come up with some movement himself. I will certainly vote against the motion again tonight and I hope that the other place votes accordingly and that we will return to the matter later this week. I hope that, by that stage, the Home Secretary will have had second thoughts and found some measure of flexibility in his position.
	It being one hour after commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [13 February].
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 284, Noes 241.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 22G and 22H disagreed to
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Nick Clegg, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. Khalid Mahmood; Mr. Tony McNulty to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

LONDON OLYMPIC GAMES AND PARALYMPIC GAMES BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21st July 2005:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 20
	 — 
	Regulations: supplemental

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10.

Richard Caborn: I shall be advising the House to accept all the amendments made in the other place. They were all tabled by the Government, following some high-quality debate and strongly made points on both sides of the House.
	The Bill has benefited from broad cross-party support throughout its passage. We improved the Bill in this House and can improve it further today by accepting the amendments made in the other place. I genuinely thank Opposition parties for their broad support and I thank Members for their positive engagement with the Bill, which has helped to prepare it for Royal Assent just nine months after Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee, opened that envelope—with some difficulty—in Singapore last July and said that wonderful word "London".
	Since then, we have been getting on with the preparatory work. We have started the Olympic park, and key personnel are already in place in both the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority. I am delighted that this important Bill has progressed so swiftly.
	Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 all relate to the people whom the Secretary of State must consult when making regulations under clause 19, which will control advertising in the vicinity of games venues, and under clause 26, which will control street trading in the vicinity of venues.

Andy Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Commonwealth games means that it is even more important that we get those provisions right, because there will obviously be much more media and advertising interest in making the Olympics a success? Will he congratulate all those who have won medals so far, especially Loughborough, which seems to be fifth in the medal table?

Richard Caborn: I could not agree more—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) tells me that Welsh swimmers are doing incredibly well, too. I realise that I am digressing, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you, like me, welcome the fantastic performance of our team in Melbourne and hope that it continues until the end of the week. It is nice to see headlines in the Australian press that we whacked the Australians in the swimming pool as well.
	As Members will recall, this House debated advertising and it was debated again at length in the other place. The debate focused on whether we should put a requirement on the face of the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult the advertising industry and anyone else likely to be affected directly by the regulations under clauses 19 and 26. Members will remember that I gave unequivocal assurances that the advertising industry would be consulted. Those assurances were echoed in the other place. However, Members will be aware that we have been very much in listening mode during the Bill's passage and, as a result, I am pleased that the Government brought forward an amendment in the other place, which addresses the concerns of Members and the industry, and gives a statutory basis to the commitments that I have already given.
	I draw Members' attention to the fact that the amendments address the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill of 15 December. The Committee commented on the need for organisations representing those affected by either the advertising or street trading regulations to be consulted. The amendments mean that representatives will be consulted where interested persons are affected by the regulations.
	I shall deal briefly with the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 3 ensures that the advertising industry, and anyone else who may be affected by the regulations that will control advertising in the vicinity of games venues, will be consulted as the regulations are being drawn up. Amendment No. 8 ensures that those likely to be affected by regulations under clause 26, controlling street trading in the vicinity of venues, will similarly be consulted.
	The remaining amendments in the group make minor and consequential changes, and I commend them to the House.

Hugh Robertson: I, for one, am extremely encouraged that we are all here. On Third Reading, I said that, although the Bill is not lengthy in parliamentary terms, it is, in fact, quite complex—setting up a de facto regional development agency in the Olympic delivery authority in its first half and establishing the ground rules of the marketing of the commercial media rights in the second. The Minister agreed about that then and looked at me, possibly a little ruefully, over the Dispatch Box. Indeed, subsequent events have proved that right. Given the fact that these are difficult and technical issues, I am delighted that they have been ironed out during the parliamentary process and that the Bill is back with us tonight.
	The time interval between winning the bid on 6 July and the first publication of the Bill on 14 July was extraordinarily short, even allowing for the fact that much of the preparatory work had obviously been done. Given the Bill's technical nature, which I have already acknowledged, it is a very considerable achievement on behalf of all those responsible for drafting the Bill—LOCOG, the British Olympic Association and, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—that the list of amendments is so short. May I therefore genuinely ask the Minister—I mean this absolutely seriously—to pass on my thanks to all those who were involved?
	In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Glentoran said:
	"If democracy in this country could run on the sorts of lines that we have debated in this particular Bill, this country would be a better place".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 2006; Vol. 679, c. 1210.]
	Fabulous, is it not? I wholly agree. The process of parliamentary scrutiny has genuinely made this a better Bill. I am told that the Sydney games needed four Bills, and I suspect that, as the games progress, a number of other issues will benefit from parliamentary scrutiny. I hope therefore that the Government will be encouraged by their experience with the Bill and that, as a result, they will involve Parliament closely, as the process develops. That is crucial to maintain the cross-party consensus that has characterised both the bid and the Bill.
	All four groups of amendments before us tonight were introduced as a result of concerns first raised in Committee and subsequently by our Front-Bench spokesman in the other place, and I should like to record my thanks to Lord Glentoran for the part that he played. Unsurprisingly, all four groups of amendments therefore enjoy my support.
	This the first group of amendments mandates the Secretary of State to consult the relevant industry bodies before regulations on advertising and street trading are drawn up. The Minister agreed to that principle in Committee, but it will now be given statutory force. Clearly, it is eminently sensible to involve the industry closely at every stage and for that requirement to have statutory force, and we all want consultation, rather than prescription, to characterise the delivery of the games. This group of amendments, therefore, has our full support.

Don Foster: I am delighted that the Minister introduced this string of amendments and, quite rightly, used it as an opportunity to praise all our athletes for their successes in the Commonwealth games. Reference has already been made to the rivalry between Bath and Loughborough. Of course, the Minister will be well aware of where our swimmers were, in the main, trained—and it was not Loughborough.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will relate to the amendments.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your advice. I was going to say that, when considering the advertising of the Olympics in 2012, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that not just English images should be used. David Davies—not the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), nor the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies)—won by nearly a full length, and he was not trained anywhere near Bath or Loughborough.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that, on the important matter of advertising, we do not want people to use ambush marketing on the pretence that someone came from their area when that was not true. Of course, he rightly reminds us that the success in the Commonwealth games to date has come from all the home countries, and we should rightly applaud all those who are involved.
	The Minister rightly made the point in introducing this string of amendments that the Bill has received a great deal of cross-party support. These proceedings are rather like the marathon runner who can find the extra energy to sprint at the end of a long race: we have the opportunity to make some important improvements during the Bill's final stages, as a result of the cross-party consensus.
	The Minister is well aware of the history; it has been referred to already. Much of what we are debating now is based on ideas that were first suggested by the hon.Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and myself in Committee, when the Minister was not prepared to accept an addition to the list of consultees in the Bill, particularly in relation to the advertising industry, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal was modelled on the Gambling Act 2005, which the very same Minister had taken through the House only a few months earlier. None the less, he was not prepared to accept that proposal. The Bill then went to another place for debate, and we were all eventually delighted that the Government were willing to accept that the advertising industry should become a statutory consultee.
	Although I clearly welcome these amendments, because they are based on proposals that originally came from Liberal Democrat and other Opposition Members, I want to raise an issue with the Minister nevertheless. We are considering the important issue of ambush advertising and marketing, and it is crucial for the House to accept that such things can happen and that we must guard against them for obvious reasons, to protect the Olympic symbol from its unwanted use in advertising.
	We therefore accept not only the need to take rapid action, as people propose novel ideas for ambush marketing, but the need for rapid consultation. That is all accepted, so it is important to take account of the fact that, only yesterday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights commented on that aspect of the Bill in its seventh report on legislative scrutiny. On page 6 of that report, on the procedures that might be adopted, it said:
	"Ordinarily this would be the occasion for adverse comment from our Committee".
	It went on to point out that it would not make such adverse comments, because of the special circumstances of the Olympic and Paralympic games. However, it made a strongly worded recommendation. It said:
	"We consider it, however, all the more important that the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the regulations when they are made provides a detailed explanation as to why in the Secretary of State's view the restrictions on advertising are compatible with the rights identified above".
	The Committee was obviously referring to human rights.
	It is crucial that the Minister use this opportunity to give absolute assurances that the regulations, when published, take account of the Joint Committee's recommendations. With that said, I, like the hon. Member for Faversham andMid-Kent, am delighted to accept these Lords amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Olympic Symbol Protection

Lords amendment: No. 11.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 18 to 20.

Richard Caborn: The thanks that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) gave to my staff and all those who worked on the Bill will be passed on. They have done an excellent job not just on the Bill, but in keeping Opposition Members informed and, indeed, in considering and acting on many of their comments, and rightly so. Those thanks will be conveyed to all those concerned.
	We will consider the Joint Committee recommendations that were referred to by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and incorporate them in the explanatory memorandum. That should be available when the Bill receives Royal Assent, which, I hope, will be early in April or even towards the end of this month.
	This group of amendments gives greater clarity as to how the London Olympics Association right affects publishers and broadcasters. The Bill had always provided for exemptions from the London Olympics Association right for people who broadcast reports or published information about the 2012 games. These amendments provide greater clarity and certainty for publishers and broadcasters that their activities will not be adversely affected by the new association right.
	Our intention throughout has been to ensure the absolute freedom of the press to report about, or indeed comment on, the Olympic games and the Paralympic games. The amendments provide important clarification of that position, but in creating an "editorial or journalistic" exemption, we needed to ensure that we did not unwittingly create a situation that advertisers and those who seek to ambush the games could exploit. That is why the journalistic exemptions in the original draft of the Bill contained the phrase "necessary incident". That phrase caused the publishers and broadcasting industries considerable concern, and I am happy that we were able in the other place to table amendments that addressed that concern.
	We have found a form of words that provide comfort to the publishers and broadcasting industries that their activities will not be unfairly affected by the Bill, but that also ensure that advertising material that is published at the same time as, or in connection with, a report or information about the games will not have an "editorial" exemption behind which to hide.
	I think that both sides of the House have always been in agreement about what this provision should achieve—ensuring the freedom of the press in relation to the 2012 games. I think these amendments achieve that without creating a loophole that advertisers who seek to ambush the games could exploit. While the issue came up in debate on the provisions in schedule 4, it applies equally to the Olympics association right as well. That is why we have made identical changes to schedule 3, which amends the original Olympic symbol legislation.
	I hope that hon. Members agree that these changes improve the Bill and that they will be prepared to accept the amendments that their lordships have made.

Hugh Robertson: As the Minister has said, this group of amendments addresses concerns raised by the broadcasting and newspaper industries and taken up by both Opposition parties both here and in the other place. On Report in this House, the issue was raised at a fairly late hour so I am delighted that it has now been properly addressed.
	There was a justifiable concern that wholly legitimate and acceptable broadcasting and journalistic activity could—I say only "could"—be caught by the advertising regulations, and there was particular concern about the term "necessary incident". This group of amendments addresses that concern, exempts publishing and broadcasting reports and information about the 2012 games from infringing the London Olympics Association right and gives the exemption statutory force on the face of the Bill. As you might expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this group of amendments therefore has my wholehearted support.

Don Foster: There is no doubt that this is a welcome group of amendments. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and the Minister have said, there was from the beginning concern from the newspapers and broadcasters about the original provision. It is worth recalling what the Newspaper Society said in its letter to members of the Standing Committee. It stated:
	"For a statutory body to have any role in determining the content of a newspaper's editorial material would be without precedent and would represent an utterly unacceptable incursion into the freedom of the press, and a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being contrary to Article 10 of the Convention."
	Similar concerns were expressed by many other bodies.
	As a result, I tabled a number of amendments in Committee initially to expand the safeguards to cover criticism and review in addition to reporting. That was considered inadequate. At a later stage, I proposed that the provision include "any editorial usage" without limitation. That, too, was rejected by the Minister. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is the Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, proposed an amendment that would have deleted the words "as a necessary incident of" and inserted the phrase "in the course of". Sadly, that too was rejected. However, I am delighted that we now have a Government amendment that deletes the words "as a necessary incident of" and inserts not the phrase "in the course of", but merely the word "in". That is clearly briefer, but makes exactly the same point. It is very similar to the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones, so it is hardly surprising that we fully support it.

Justine Greening: I briefly wish to take the opportunity to add my support to the amendments. We all recognise that, although some people will get to watch the Olympics live, most people even in my constituency of Putney, which is close to where some of the events will take place, will watch the games on television in the same way that we now watch Wimbledon on television. To be able to iron out the concern described is a real achievement. I am very pleased that we have been able to do it.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13 agreed to.

Schedule 4
	 — 
	London Olympics Association Right

Lords amendment: No. 14.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Richard Caborn: This group of amendments relates to the status of the words and phrases listed in schedule 4. In debate, both here and in the other place, considerable concern was expressed about the "evidential burden" that we had created in relation to schedule 4. The evidential burden would have meant that the use in combination of the words and phrases listed in paragraph 3 of the schedule would, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, have been treated as constituting an association with the London Olympics. Although the burden was a light one, by which a defendant had to produce any evidence that an association had not been made, to shift the burden back to LOCOG to prove its case, we have listened to what has been said during the Bill's passage and have taken the opportunity to amend it by removing the evidential presumption.
	We still feel that the list of words and phrases in schedule 4 is important in helping the public to understand what sort of activity may create an association with the London games, but we appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the position in which we would have been putting advertisers and businesses by virtue of an evidential presumption.
	The amendments will remove the evidential presumption attached to the use of the words and phrases listed in paragraph 3. Instead, we have suggested that when considering whether the London Olympics Association right has been breached, the courts would be able to consider, in particular, whether the defendant had used a combination of the words and phrases listed in schedule 4.
	I hope that hon. Members will be able to support this approach. It removes the evidential presumption about which both Houses had expressed concerns, but retains in the Bill the list of words and phrases that provides greater clarity for the public about what the association right is about, and allows the court to take into account the use of those words and phrases when deciding whether someone has infringed the association right. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Hugh Robertson: The amendment addresses the use of presumption, in that a person is "presumed" to have infringed the London Olympics Association right by using any of the words listed in the Bill. It has become known, slightly unfortunately, as the reversal of the presumption of innocence, and it was one of the most controversial aspects of the original Bill.
	As the Minister has said, we debated the issue at length both in Committee and on Report, and I warned him on Third Reading that I thought that it would cause problems in the other place.In Committee we discussed the defences that were available in the original Bill and the fact that the approach was consistent with Sheldrake v. DPP and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However, concerns remained, focused mainly on two areas: first, the fact that it is a basic principle of English law that one is innocent until proven guilty, and the regulation at least seemed to contravene that principle; and secondly, the fact that the Bill seemed to weight the dice firmly in favour of LOCOG.
	We all accept that the marketing of major international sports events is now in a new era, and organisers demand exclusivity to derive the most commercially advantageous sponsorship deals. As a quid pro quo, we all accept that some of the money finds its way back to the grass-roots development of sport. I wholly agree with that principle. However, it is important to strike a balance so that the enforcement of the measures is not unduly heavy-handed.
	The amendments represent a good compromise. LOCOG gets the exclusivity that it requires and the security of knowing that the regulations will take effect on Royal Assent, while on the other side of the fence, the industry gets some measure of protection from over-zealous enforcement. I therefore have no hesitation in agreeing to the amendments.

Don Foster: I, too, am delighted to say that we will support the amendments. This matter caused great concern during the passage of the Bill. I said in Committee that at the very least the presumption of liability, if not of guilt,
	"goes against what everyone in this country and certainly our courts holds dear: the principle of innocence until proven guilty."
	When the matter was first raised, the Minister said:
	"it is appropriate, and indeed proportionate, that the burden of proof falls on the defendant in this case."
	We argued strongly that the Government's view was incorrect, but the Minister tried to justify it by saying:
	"we are not going after the little granny who owns the sweet shop at the bottom of the road, in order to haul her before the courts. That would be crazy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c. 94–97.]
	However, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has rightly pointed out, it is crucial that we realise that we will be dealing not only with the little granny, but with local sports clubs and community bodies, which need protection.
	I was genuinely delighted that although the Government failed to accept amendments tabled in this place, progress was made when the Bill got to another place and was in the hands of my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones. I noted with interest that Lord Davies of Oldham described himself as quailing in the face of Lord Clement-Jones on the matter. It was good to note that after Lord Davies had listened to my noble Friend's argument, he was willing to accept it and move an amendment with wording similar to that tabled by my noble Friend.
	I am sure that the amendments will be accepted today, but I hope that the Minister will give thought on another occasion to the outstanding question of LOCOG's status in respect of freedom of information legislation. He will be aware that LOCOG is exempt from such legislation because it is a private body. I accept entirely that confidential business matters need to be protected, but that legislation already protects them. Although LOCOG will not be covered by freedom of information legislation, I hope that it will operate as if it was covered by that legislation, because it is important that there be absolute transparency whenever it acts and makes decisions, especially on the matter that the amendments address. Let me end as I began, by saying that I am delighted that we are considering amendments to the most controversial bit of the Bill and that we have found a satisfactory situation to the problem.

Andy Reed: I add my congratulations on the way in which this issue has been dealt with, which demonstrates that there has been cross-party support for getting the wording right throughout the Bill's passage. Opposition Members were right to raise the matter in Committee because the Bill would have somewhat shifted the presumption on the evidence, although we also realised that there was a real need to prevent ambush marketing. The headline-grabbing words in the Bill made it difficult to escape that thought. The idea that we could ban the use of the word "summer" in a whole variety of contexts, which was suggested by paragraph 3(4)(g) of schedule 4, caused consternation outside the House—although those of us who were involved in the Bill's passage, LOCOG and others realised that we wished to prevent the use of a combination of phrases and words, such as "2012" and "the games", for commercial purposes.
	I want reassurance from the Minister about a matter raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Will he ensure that there is sufficient flexibility for amateur sports clubs and associations and county sports partnerships throughout the country? For example, in Leicestershire the county sports partnership and others are trying to organise 2012 fun runs from now right through to the time of the Olympics. We want an assurance that no such projects will ever be caught, because they are intended not to make a commercial profit out of the games but to encourage people to participate. They are intended to encourage mass participation in sport throughout the country by garnering enthusiasm for the 2012 Olympics.
	We have made the right move by trying to reassure people outside the House that the presumption is not the wrong way round, and that the presumption of innocence exists. However, the regulations will still be sufficiently tough to address those who wish to profit from the games. We should not underestimate the fact that many people will want to ride on the back of the success of the Olympics, especially as we run up to the games in 2010 and 2011. If we allow that to happen, it might jeopardise the commercial success of the Olympics and the money that we need to generate through big sponsors to pay for the games. It is thus important that we get this aspect of the Bill right. On reflection, we now have perhaps the best possible way forward, so I congratulate all who have been involved on finding the solution.

Maria Miller: I welcome the amendment on evidential presumption, because the matter caused a great deal of debate in Committee. However, I wish that the amendments went further, especially on the terms of infringement.
	As we predicted in Committee, the list of prohibited words and expressions is starting to cause problems for several organisations. Such organisations wish to support the games and ensure that they are a success for the whole country. An organisation in my constituency called Basingstoke 2012, which was set up to promote Basingstoke as a site for an Olympic training team, has already fallen foul of the rules, and I believe that other organisations throughout the country are experiencing similar difficulties. The problems are of such an extent that my local paper, the Basingstoke Gazette, is running a competition to rename the organisation. In the meantime, the organisation is being called "Basingstoke 2011 plus one" to try to get round the problem. The situation is a little reminiscent of what we were discussing in Committee, so I hope for further reassurance from the Minister that organisations that wish to support the success of the games for the betterment of the country will not fall foul of the measures.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 agreed to.
	Lords Amendment: No. 17.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I have heard the comments made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), and I shall speak to LOCOG about that matter. As she knows, LOCOG will start any prosecution and take a view on such issues. We will give further consideration to freedom of information, and although the issue should not be addressed in the Bill, I have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
	Like other amendments that we have debated today, Lords amendment No. 17 was introduced following debate in this House and the other place. It makes it clear that before altering the list of words and phrases in paragraph 3 of schedule 4, the Secretary of State shall consult the advertising industry, advertising regulators, LOCOG and anyone else whom she thinks appropriate. The amendment is similar to those that we have already discussed in relation to the advertising and street trading regulations, and again, we have listened to the concerns expressed by the industry and on both sides of the House. The amendment provides on the face of the Bill greater assurance for the advertising industry that it will be consulted on provisions that may affect its day-to-day business. I think it unlikely that the list of words and phrases in schedule 4 will change, but hon. Members will appreciate that if damaging ambush marketing takes place between now and 2012, the Secretary of State must retain the right to alter that list.

Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that there would be another possible reason for a change if the IOC changed the technical manuals, in which case the Secretary of State would have no choice other than to change the wording?

Richard Caborn: That is right. The IOC could make such a change, perhaps in response to an international issue, in which case the amendment would give us the necessary flexibility. We must retain the right to make a change in order to provide greater clarity both to the courts and to the public about what sort of activity is likely to create an unauthorised association.
	We should also bear in mind that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to remove words from the list, if legitimate business is stifled as a result of the provision in schedule 4. As a result of the amendment, the Secretary of State "shall consult" persons who will be affected by changing the list of words. The amendment specifies that appropriate consultation will take place with the advertising industry, advertising regulators, LOCOG and others. I am happy to advise the House to accept the amendment, which includes some of the commitments that we have made during the Bill's passage through Parliament.

Hugh Robertson: As the Minister has said, the amendment gives statutory force to the requirement to consult the advertising industry, its regulators and LOCOG. Once again, it returns to an issue that was discussed at length in Committee and on Report in this House and in the other place. It recognises the concerns of the industry and strengthens the requirement to consult, and therefore has my full support.
	As the Bill leaves this House and Parliament for Royal Assent, may I place on the record my view that it is a considerable achievement for Parliament to have got such a complicated but important Bill on to the statute book in so short a time? I have already paid tribute to civil servants for their work—I do so again now—and I also pay tribute to those at LOCOG and the British Olympic Association who have been involved with the Bill. The Bill has also been an excellent advertisement for the benefits of parliamentary scrutiny and cross-party co-operation. I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that that continues as we move towards 2012, and if they do so, they will have our wholehearted support.

Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), I am delighted that we have seen this final change of heart by the Government on this important issue. I am also delighted that we will now see on the face of the Bill some of the things that a number of hon. Members have requested for quite a long time.
	As I said when we discussed the first group of amendments, we must accept that sometimes there will be a need for rapid change in the light of clever techniques used by advertisers. However, it is equally important that before any rapid change takes place, whether because of an incident or because of a request from the IOC, the consultation to which the amendment refers should take place. That may be difficult, because advertising is often planned a long time in advance, which involves the investment of a lot of money. I can foresee a number of difficulties, which is why I am pleased that the amendment includes not only consultation with the advertising industry but a requirement to consult those who regulate the advertising industry, which is a crucial addition.
	It is worth reflecting that this is the only amendment that appears to have come almost out of nowhere. When other amendments were debated in the Lords, there was agreement that the Government accepted the principle and would come back with their own amendment. When this provision was debated in Committee in the Lords on 15 February, however, it was rejected outright, and the Government said that they were not interested in implementing it. Suddenly, lo and behold, the Government introduced the provision on Report on 16 March. None of us is sure what caused their change of heart, but whoever persuaded them—on this occasion it was not Lord Clement-Jones—they did a good job and deserve congratulation.
	Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and the Minister, I think that both Houses of Parliament can be inordinately proud of themselves for the way in which we have handled this Bill, which is the crucial legislation for the important 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. All of us have been extremely well served by the Minister's staff, Department of Culture, Media and Sport civil servants and a wide range of lobbying groups. The lobbying groups have advised hon. Members on both sides of the House, which has enabled amendments to be tabled that have made the Bill much better than it was when it came before us a few months ago.

John Bercow: Let them take a bow.

Don Foster: The Minister certainly deserves to take a bow. He has worked hard on the Bill, and he has been willing to listen to the arguments and make concessions. All those involved deserve praise for what is now an excellent Bill, which will help us to deliver excellent Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 20 agreed to.

Managed Migration

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Tony McNulty: I am delighted that we are discussing the important proposals on the new points-based system for managed migration, which were published the other week. In the first instance, I wanted to ensure that we had a debate—we tried to secure a debate in Westminster Hall, but that did not happen for various reasons, so I am enormously grateful that one is being held on the Floor of the House.
	A proper, grown-up, substantial, mature debate on migration is long overdue in British politics in general and in this Chamber in particular. When we launched the document last week, I remembered that one of my predecessors in this role, the former hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, had the temerity to try to get up a substantive debate on managed migration in the press. She was royally chewed up and spat out by the press and the political establishment, one and all, for having the temerity to suggest that economic migration might be a good thing rather than otherwise. I think and hope that we have come a long, long way and that the points-based system that we presented last week is part of that process. I hope, too, that we have come a long way from the situation that pertained at the general election. At the risk of boring the House, may I repeat that the Opposition should be thoroughly ashamed both of the views that they expressed and of their conduct?

Justine Greening: indicated dissent.

Tony McNulty: I will exempt the hon. Lady, because I read her leaflets from start to finish, and they never mentioned immigration. She rightly concentrated on four of the five pledges in her inner London seat. It is not appropriate, in a general election or at other times, to publish the ignorant phrase,
	"Which part of 'Send them back' don't you understand, Mr. Blair?",
	and expect it to be treated as a serious contribution to public policy debates on asylum or immigration. It is not clever to talk, as one leaflet did, about unlimited immigration and the
	"strain put on local schools by bogus asylum seekers".
	It is not clever to show a little map of the world with a big arrow pointing at the immigration and nationality directorate in Croydon, along with the phrase, "Unlimited immigration—this way."
	Those are not substantive contributions to the debate. Our work since the election shows that we have not run away from that debate. Public policy generally was not well served by the tone or tenor of an election campaign that conflated race, community relations and asylum and immigration in the nastiest way possible. It is not appropriate for a political candidate to say that five illegal immigrants were arrested in his local town centre and freed in the area. He went on to say that no one knew whether those people were criminals, were carrying diseases and so on. Those are serious allegations to level at fellow human beings. There was routine misinformation, in which central Government funding was conflated with other matters. Newspaper adverts up and down the country dressed up the issue, implying that there would be an impact on local council tax payers. However, they simply lied about the level of financial commitment and the cost of asylum to council tax payers. There was absolute misinformation and lies.

Peter Lilley: I entirely agree that it is quite wrong to base any policy on abuse of the character of immigrants or would-be immigrants to this country. Does the Minister agree that it is equally wrong in an election or otherwise to abuse people who believe that it is none the less right to impose restrictions on immigration by saying that they are racist? That happened time and again up and down the country, when Labour candidates stood against us, and against me in particular.

Tony McNulty: May I say unreservedly that I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman? It is not racist to talk about immigration control or managed migration, but the Conservatives' national campaign suggested that we believed it was. However, that allegation was not true, either nationally or in my constituency. I deplore the actions of anyone who attacks people simply for trying to hold a debate on serious issues that matter to our country and describes them as racist. We need a substantive debate, and our five-year strategy, including the points-based system, is an important contribution. In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered a speech in which he outlined the points-based system, the new asylum model and other aspects of policy that I have had the pleasure of trying to implement since the election. During the election campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Dover on 24 April that most people recognise the huge contribution that immigrants have made to this country. That is central to what we are trying to achieve with the points-based system.

Justine Greening: I shook my head because of my experience as a candidate last year. Many of my constituents who are seeking indefinite leave to remain have to wait for years before they receive a response and can get on with their lives in Putney. I believe that we raised a valid issue at the election, and the fact that the Government have now introduced a points-based system for immigration—and I am pleased that they have done so—surely demonstrates that we were right to do so. He might not like the tone of our arguments—he rightly pointed out that I did not adopt that tone—but does he not agree that we were right to raise the issue?

Tony McNulty: No, I do not. That is not simply because of the tone, which was unnecessarily hectoring and verged on racist in some quarters—I accept, however, that that applied to some areas more than others—but because the substance was wrong. The hon. Lady has been an MP for 10 months, so I find it hard to accept that she has hordes of constituents who have been waiting years for indefinite leave to remain. I praise her, however, along with a few of her colleagues, for having the intelligence to resist the nasty hectoring campaign that many members of her party ran nationally. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly described Conservative policy at the election as incoherent babble. He said it was a deliberate attempt to exploit people's fears—that is true, although perhaps not in Putney—and to suggest that for reasons of political correctness those in power do not care to deal with the issue.
	That is almost the exact opposite of the rhetorical question posed by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). The Conservatives deliberately suggested that there were subliminal ideological reasons why, at the election, the Government and the Labour party did not want to do anything about immigration, which was untrammelled, uncontrolled and relentless: it was suggested that that resulted from our new Labour, ideological, Islington-based position. It is, however, utterly wrong—in fact, it is as wrong as the opposite suggestion.

John Pugh: I agree that it was not just a matter of tone. In my constituency, misinformation about the cost of immigration to council tax payers was circulated. It was opposed by the Church and the chief executive of the council, and it did nothing but disturb race relations. How could that have been accidental?

Tony McNulty: I agree, but I do not wish to dwell on the matter unduly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been nine minutes of dwelling on this. I appeal to the House to recognise that our debate will be better if we look forward rather than back?

Tony McNulty: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Prime Minister went on to describe Conservative proposals to withdraw from international conventions on refugees and to process asylum seekers on an offshore fantasy island as beyond rebuke. It is important for public confidence in asylum and immigration policy that our debates should not set such a tone or make ridiculous proposals. The new asylum model has been developed in that context, and it must be set alongside the points-based system.

Keith Vaz: I accept that the Minister is painting a picture before moving on to the detail of the scheme, but may I bring him back to the subject of our debate? I congratulate him on all the work he has done to bring together 80 separate schemes, but is he satisfied that his new system will deal with the acute shortage of chefs in Indian and Bangladeshi restaurants?

Tony McNulty: I am entirely satisfied that that is the case, but I told the sector that there are already problems with shortages. It is no good holding a fruitless debate about the impact or otherwise of the points-based system, as the sector broadly agrees that it will help, rather than hinder, recruitment. I am more than happy, however, to meet it to talk about its concerns about current shortages and training. It agrees that the points-based system will help, but we need to address the serious problems that already exist.

Andrew Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to work with the restaurant sector on the issue, which is enormously important. Into which category will the workers in question fall under the points-based scheme? Is it the second category, under which relatively skilled people can stay after five years, or is it the third category of unskilled workers who have to go back after a year?

Tony McNulty: The answer to my right hon. Friend, in short, is both. Once the sector has worked with the skills advisory body to establish that there is a shortage, those with skills who are performing skilled roles as chefs, under-chefs and such roles in restaurants can come in under tier 2. If it can be shown—from discussions with the sector I think that it can be—that neither the UK labour market nor the wider EU labour market can fill the gaps in the sector, those with a much lower skills base can come in through that route.
	We must establish sector by sector where the cut-off point is between tier 2 and tier 3—the cut-off point in terms of skills, training, remuneration and qualifications. Between now and final implementation of the plan, we have the time and space to get discussions under way with the sector. I repeat the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when we introduced the scheme: many of the concerns expressed by the sector, not just by Indian and Bangladeshi restaurants, but by the Chinese sector as well, need resolving now, rather than waiting for the system to be implemented.

Russell Brown: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comments, but there are greater difficulties in rural localities. Some communities—cities and some larger towns—are more attractive to those who wish to come and work in that sector. It is difficult to draw them from the cities to rural areas.

Tony McNulty: I accept that. Once the substantive shortages are clearly identified, such considerations must be factored into the process leading to the issuing of the work permit.

John Bercow: Can the Minister tell the House where he is now in the review of the food processing quota? The review, as I understand it, is due to be completed by June 2006. Given that the Government have said that on the whole they want to bring to an end low-skilled migration schemes from outside European economic area countries, does he accept that although that might be a good policy—Community preference as a matter of principle—he needs to allow for the possibility that there will not be a sufficient labour supply from the new accession states, and that in those circumstances the gap can properly be filled from other countries?

Tony McNulty: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we made it clear in the Command Paper on the points-based system what stage schemes such as the sector-based schemes, the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and those covering food processing had reached and how they would continue.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), that much of the purpose of the points-based system is to reduce to the five tiers the 80-odd routes that have developed higgledy-piggledy for education, work and study. He is equally right—this is very important—that if the document is written on the assumption that some 350,000 workers from the A8 countries are filling many of the low-skilled positions in the UK economy, and that there will be a collective governmental "Oops!" in 2011 when all the barriers in all the European countries are down and nationals of the A8 countries have access to all the labour markets, the entire pool of labour filling the gaps from the A8 countries will suddenly dry up because it has gone elsewhere in Europe. The system must be and is flexible enough to take account of that.
	I do not know and, if I may be flippant for a moment, the Home Office, given its previous record on futurology in these matters, does not know what will happen by the time we get to the transition from 2009 to 2011 and the barriers coming down across all European labour markets. I suspect that a residual element will still come to the UK for assorted cultural and other reasons because we have allowed them to come earlier rather than later. The number will probably not be 350,000, but the points-based system must be flexible enough so that if those gaps are not filled by A8 nationals once they are able to work throughout the European Union, the next step beyond EU preference will be to look in the wider international labour market.

John Bercow: The Minister is being generous in giving way. He should not be embarrassed about, and I would not criticise him for, what I might call the statistical inexactitude of Home Office labour market predictions. There is nothing to be embarrassed about there at all. All it proves is that Governments on the whole cannot predict these things. In that context, does the Minister agree that it is therefore incredibly important to look to the skills advisory body for detailed, independent and authoritative advice, and to publish the reports of that body so that we can see the basis on which policy is made?

Tony McNulty: That is absolutely right, and I remember the hon. Gentleman raising that point in Home Office questions. The skills advisory body will be extremely important not only across sectors, but within sectors, and will work with the sector skills councils, the skills development agency and others so that there can be confidence across industry, the economy and the public about their discussions and analysis of skills shortages. That will determine how we fill the gaps from   beyond an EU-wide labour market. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

David Taylor: I pay tribute to the intelligence, creativity and tenacity, all of which are overdue, that my hon. Friend has brought to such a sensitive job in Government. Developing the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), which suggests that we are embarking on a journey akin to driving a car by reference only to the rear view mirror, rather than to what is happening in front, what lessons does my hon. Friend draw from the projections that the hon. Member for Buckingham suggested might be more accurate from employer and other associations? Around 2000, such organisations thought that demand for IT staff would remain substantial for the foreseeable future, but all of a sudden, almost out of a clear blue sky, the market and demand collapsed. Is my hon. Friend confident and convinced that the computer and other systems that will be in place will be sufficiently quick and adaptable to pick up trends more quickly than has been the case in recent employment history?

Tony McNulty: They will have to be, in an increasingly dynamic, fast moving and global labour market. I demur from some of my hon. Friend's assumptions. Demand for IT workers still exists, but it is no longer located just in Europe. It is international. I describe the situation in terms of circularity. We need to go beyond—this underpins the points-based system too—the notion of the classic migration routes, where people moved from one place to another because the opportunities for their personal advancement were better. There is now increasing circularity.
	IT skills are a good example. Indian investors who are investing significantly in the UK tell me that they would like second and third-generation British people of Indian origin to stay in the UK to fill jobs in the IT sector. Their fear is that because they are of Indian origin, people are going off for three, four or five years to Bangalore and various other "silicon valleys" in India, where they can have a far nicer lifestyle and greater reward for their skills. Indian investors would prefer them to stay in the UK and work for them here. That sort of circularity is increasingly part of the process of immigration—it is no longer simply a case of people moving from here to there in the classic model. I go along with my hon. Friend in part, but not in substance.
	Central to the points-based system is the notion that economic migration is good. I am grateful that, across the piece, people have welcomed the publication of the paper. The CBI, the TUC, the British Council, Universities UK and a host of other organisations have given a broad welcome to the direction that it sets out. It does not give every single detail of where we are going to arrive at the points-based system. It is, in part, a response to a lengthy and extensive consultation process that took place from July to November, as outlined in the back of the document. It has not only received a broad welcome but created a broad desire among all the sectors that matter to work and engage with the Home Office to take things forward.
	In terms of the time line, we think that we are about 18 months away from the full introduction of the overall points-based system. Bearing in mind that it started as an idea in the February 2005 speech that outlined the five-year plan, if the system is implemented by around February 2008, the most significant change in our migration policy in 34 years will have gone from a standing start to full implementation in the best part of three years, which is not slow in anybody's terms.
	Last Friday, we held two post-publication events for what we are now supposed to call the stakeholders. The morning session was for the business community. Some 700 people turned up, and it went terribly well, with lots of questions asked and another broad welcome given. In the afternoon, between 250 and 300 people from the education sector discussed where we go from here. It is important that that engagement continues, and it shall.
	One of the realities underlying the scheme is that there is now a broader European Union labour market that needs to be factored into the equation. By the end of the transition period of 2009 to 2011, there will be an open labour market across 25 countries. It is important that the points-based system is seen in the context of everything else that we are doing as regards border controls, the new asylum model and so on. The system must be, and will be, robust against abuse. Only those of benefit to the UK should be admitted, and once here they should comply with their conditions of leave. Equally central to the scheme is that those who should benefit from migration, particularly employers and education institutions, should work far more readily with the Government to ensure that that is the case.

Anne Moffat: I regret having to bring in an element of negativity, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concerns about a situation in my constituency whereby a mushroom farm that has taken on a lot of migrant workers has been deliberately squeezing out the local work force. The migrant workers are working for far lower terms and conditions of employment and for excessive hours, and the indigenous work force, who were in their hundreds, are now down to 20-odd. Surely we must do something to protect our indigenous workers and prevent the racial tensions that mount as a result of this.

Tony McNulty: I do not know the exact details of that case, but if my hon. Friend wants to share them with me I will certainly look into it. Migration is not about bringing people in to work in substandard conditions, and migrant workers must be afforded the same sort of welfare protection as anybody else. We are rightly taking cognisance of the impact of migration inflows on local labour markets.
	Although it is beyond the remit of many aspects of the work of the National Asylum Support Service and other agencies, it is important that the Home Office, with other Government Departments, starts to consider the impact—sudden impact in some cases, it is fair to say—of concentrations of east European workers in certain areas. There was a case up in Crewe where all of a sudden, as a result of the successful work of a local employment agency, some 3,000 Polish workers descended on the area almost overnight. They were taking on perfectly proper jobs, so there was nothing wrong in that sense, but it might have been helpful if the employment agency had told the council that those people were coming.
	Seemingly minor changes can have a significant impact on the local infrastructure. In the case of Crewe, 3,000 Polish people turned up in a population of 60,000. Given that the Poles are Catholic, it might be useful if the schools or the local education authority had had some notion that they were coming in case 25 children pop up in the local Catholic school saying, "We'd like to come in, please", as they have a perfect right to do. We need to consider such factors. We are working with the Department of Trade and Industry and others in respect of the exploitation of migrant workers and the impact on labour markets. About a year ago, I was pleased to launch a joint statement with the TUC and the CBI about the benefits of migrant workers, part of which dealt with the impact on local labour markets and the rights, benefits and welfare conditions of migrant workers. That is a very important point.

John Bercow: I do not sniff at what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat) said, as I am not familiar with the particular circumstances in her constituency. However, does the Minister agree that it is important conclusively to demolish the "lump of labour" fallacy—the notion that there is a fixed amount of work to be done and that immigrants are taking away the jobs of domestic workers? The truth is that the main demand for migrant labour comes in sectors where there are long-term job vacancies and significant skills shortages that need to be filled. In other words, people are doing jobs that British workers are unable or unwilling to do. That, for the most part, is the reality of the matter.

Tony McNulty: I fear that the hon. Gentleman, whom I agree with, by the way, will tempt me back into talking about how daft and nasty the last Conservative election manifesto was. However, I shall resist that temptation, because he makes an entirely fair point. Traditionally, economic migration has principally been about the needs of the economy in a whole range of sectors where there is no apparent demand for work, and has not been for some time, from the domestic work force, not least in agriculture, where there is a long history of inward migration. Until Portugal beat England in the European championship, I had not realised that the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in Norfolk is surrounded by significant elements of Portuguese labour who have been there for generations servicing the rural economy. Obviously the people of Norfolk knew that, because they went and smashed up their pubs after Portugal had beaten England.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) makes a good point that illustrates why the points-based system does not include a quota on immigration but responds to the specific needs of specific sectors across the economy. It brings 80-odd routes down into five manageable routes that create clarity for applicants and clarity for the employers and education institutions that require those applicants. Just as importantly, it gives the wider public confidence, which was knocked off-course by the Conservatives during the general election, in an immigration system that works in a controlled and managed way that aids our economy.

Justine Greening: I sympathise with the Minister's story about the Portugal v. England shoot-out. I was similarly disappointed when I heard cheers from a room next to mine, believing that it was full of English people, only to discover that most of the people who worked at the hotel where I was staying were Portuguese. I was therefore disappointed when I learned the result.
	I believe that the proposals in the points-based system are for new applicants. Some of my constituents may have had to wait for several years already. If they have skills that would fit a points-based system, can they reapply and how will that fit in with their existing applications for leave to remain?

Tony McNulty: Unkind colleagues on the Front Bench suggested that the people cheering next door might have been Scottish, not Portuguese, if goals were scored against England. I am sure that that is not case.
	I cannot answer the hon. Lady substantively without knowing the specific constituents' cases to which she refers. Broadly, we should not confuse the new scheme with general settlement. We have clearly said that, in the points-based system, tiers 1 and 2, which essentially cover highly skilled migrants and areas where significant skills shortages have been identified, are settlement routes. Tier 3 is, by definition, temporary. Tier 4 covers students and may lead to a settlement route—there are ways out of that. Tier 5 covers short-term activities, such as youth exchange and cultural exchange. Again, it is temporary. The tiers should not therefore be confused with pending applications for indefinite leave to remain—ILR.
	Those with pending applications for ILR on their journey to settlement will simply complete four to five years if they apply in the normal way—if they have no criminal records and so on. If ILR follows extended leave to remain—ELR—or other elements, from asylum to settlement via refugee status, with or without temporary protection, that is outside the points-based system. We are not therefore locking up every single element of the settlement and nationality routes, including the points-based system, together. I am sorry if that is convoluted and does not answer all the hon. Lady's points but I am happy to discuss it further at another time.

Pete Wishart: I assure the Minister that it was not Scottish people in the hotel on the evening that has been mentioned.
	The Minister spoke about all the different immigration schemes working together, which most of us welcome as a sensible step forward. However, where does that leave the Scottish Executive's fresh talent initiative? Will it remain as a stand-alone recruitment scheme? It was the only thing that Scotland had to give us some sort of competitive advantage to attract skilled migrants. Am I right to assume that it will be merged into tier 1A? If not, how does the Minister expect the initiative to stand alone, and to allow Scotland, which has chronic population problems, to compete for the skilled migrants?

Tony McNulty: That is a fair point. Much of what Scotland has achieved through the fresh talent: working in Scotland scheme and other schemes will eventually be included in the points-based system. However, in doing that, sorting out the specific demographic and other difficulties that Scotland experiences will be borne in mind because we agree with the Scottish Executive. Scotland does not need a stand-alone system outwith the points-based system, but a managed migration, points-based system that deals specifically with Scotland's current difficulties. The document explains that. It provides for regional disparity, concerns and needs. I am not being disparaging or dismissing Scotland's concerns as regional. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish labour market presents specific problems and challenges. That is why we are working closely with the Scottish Executive on the fresh talent: working in Scotland scheme. It is early days; the scheme has been running for only about a year. We are actively working with the Scottish Executive to ascertain what Scottish package—if I may use that phrase—emerges to deal with Scotland's needs and work with the grain of the points-based system. The hon. Gentleman makes important points but we are tackling them with the Scottish Executive and we shall make announcements in due course.
	It is important that applicants find the process simpler and that employers and education institutions know the most important routes. That is the way forward for the UK in the 21st century. Hon. Members should rest assured that we do not underestimate the challenge of implementing the new system. We are approximately 18 months from full implementation. We need the legislative building bricks in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill and we hope that we can secure that sooner rather than later.
	Some significant discussion remains to be held with a host of groups about how they fit in with the strategic framework that the Command Paper clearly sets out. That covers not least working with the Scottish Executive. I believe that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) made what he calls music in the recent past. Tomorrow, I will have discussions with the arts and cultural sector because there are concerns about the way in which the permit system affects, for example, orchestras that visit the country for tours. At an event on Friday, I was told that the points-system had at least the potential to smash the integrity of international circus tours. I did not mean to do that, so I shall engage with that sector, too. We are beginning to get to the level of talking to each sector about how its needs can be met in the context of the document.
	The new system crucially shifts the work permit and visa application to the same domain, and the same process applies to both. That makes sense. There is no danger of our underestimating the IT training, resources and other elements that are required.
	The points-based system constitutes a huge and significant step forward towards the Government's aim to achieve greater public confidence in the immigration system, and ensure that the UK and the UK economy secure the migrant workers that we deserve, and that they have the welcome that they deserve in this country and continue to make a substantial contribution to it. I commend the Command Paper to the House.

Damian Green: Like the Minister, I am pleased that we are holding the debate and grateful that it is in the Chamber rather than Westminster Hall because of the seriousness of the subject. I only regret that he chose to preface a serious 30-minute speech with 10 minutes of cheap and backward-looking abuse, which was worthy neither of him nor the important subject.
	Conservatives want this country to have a civilised and controlled immigration system. We welcome not only genuine refugees but immigrants who bring benefits to our economy and help provide the cultural diversity of modern Britain. We want debates on immigration policy to be calm and rational.
	We believe that, for immigration to be positive both for the hosts and the new entrants to the country, it must happen under a controlled system, in which everyone has confidence. People must know that our borders are secure, that the amount of illegal immigration is minimised and that those who are here but have no right to be here will be identified and then removed. When that happens, we will be able fully to enjoy the economic and cultural benefits of migration.
	Those are the challenges for the Government's overall immigration policy. The specific challenge for the system that we are discussing today is whether it will be fair, transparent and beneficial not only to our economy but our society.
	Let me start with the principles behind the policy. We welcome the principle of a points-based system for economic migration. Indeed, we have called for it for some time, and, in the spirit of the new politics, I welcome the Government's move towards Conservative territory on this matter. I hope that I do not sound churlish if I inquire politely why it took them so long. They have produced five immigration Bills in their nine years of office. None fully contained such proposals, not even the measure that we are still discussing after last Thursday's peculiar events caused by the Government and the Whips Office. The truth is that it has taken the Government a long time—too long—to come to the conclusion that the present system simply is not working.
	In a Home Office paper of 2005, the Home Secretary said that
	"the system we have at present works well".
	In this year's document, however, he admits that the system is not effectively targeting the migrants of most benefit to the UK, and that it is complex, subjective and bureaucratic. He is now right. The recognition of the need for a new system is an implicit recognition that the present system is failing. There are several reasons why the system needs replacing. The entry clearance officers are under impossible pressures, there are no effective controls at too many of our borders, and the sheer complexity of our system defeats many people who could benefit this country.
	However, the key questions, which Ministers are trying hard to evade—and to which we received no answers in the Minister's long speech this evening—are about the effect of the new system on the number of people coming into this country. There are two basic questions. Do the Government expect the new system to lead to a rise in the number of people coming to this country? Do they want it to lead to an increase in those numbers? In 2003, the previous Home Secretary famously said that he could see "no obvious upper limit" to legal immigration. Is that still Government policy? The Home Secretary has been opaque on the subject in recent days, so I hope that the Ministers will be able, between them, to clear the matter up this evening.
	That question is absolutely central to the success or failure of a points-based system. The Government talk about managing migration, but there is all the difference in the world between asking people to form an orderly queue and then letting in anyone who wants to come, and saying that there is an upper limit to the numbers, beyond which we should not go. Which of those aims is this policy designed to achieve?

Keith Vaz: Why is the numbers game important, when those who will come to this country under the new scheme will be coming in order to contribute to the economy? Why is the numbers game still so important to the Conservative party?

Damian Green: It is not a game. The hon. Gentleman has made many distinguished contributions to this debate over the years, but he should try to resist using the phrase "the numbers game". Of course numbers are important. People want a controlled immigration system and they will want to know whether we have open borders or not. Whatever individual benefits might arise from the scheme, there will also be collective issues at stake, including population growth and pressure on public services, especially in those parts of the country that already have very high levels of population growth. It is impossible to look at this issue intelligently in the round without considering the effects on all the individuals concerned and the collective pressures on public policy.

Keith Vaz: rose—

Damian Green: I shall give way again in a minute.
	My objection to the proposals is that the Government are being completely ambiguous on this central matter—[Interruption.] The Minister is trying to heckle me from a sedentary position. If he wishes to make clear the Government's position, he might have the chance to do so later if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Or he can do so now by making an intervention. Meanwhile, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I am concerned about the numbers game because, when the new member states joined the European Union on 1 May 2005, the Conservatives made allegations that those coming here would not make a contribution to the British economy. Those allegations were even extended to suggest that those people would go on benefits. The fact is, however, that their presence in this country has contributed greatly to our economy, and, at the last count, fewer than 100 of them had gone on benefits.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman has not raised the tone of the debate with that intervention. I could not have been clearer about my party's attitude to economic migration in the course of this speech. He has listened to it, and I could not have put it more clearly. We welcome people who will bring economic benefits to the country and who will themselves benefit from being here. Of course we also welcome genuine refugees, and we welcome the cultural diversity of modern Britain. I cannot put it more clearly than that.
	I would now like some clarity from the Government on the purpose of this policy—[Interruption.] The Ministers are sitting there chuntering on the Front Bench, but the House will observe—

Andy Burnham: rose—

Damian Green: Ah, excellent!

Andy Burnham: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman flannelling away. Picking up on what he has been saying, I understand that he is still in favour of a quota. Will he make it clear whether that is the case?

Damian Green: I am in favour of a controlled immigration system. Is the Minister in favour of uncontrolled numbers? Is it still the case that he can see "no obvious upper limit" to legal immigration? Will the Minister answer those questions?

Andy Burnham: The purpose of the system that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality has just outlined is that people should be allowed in if they can contribute to the economy, if there is a shortage and a need for people to come. That is the logic of the system. The hon. Gentleman has been outlining the argument for a quota. Is he in favour of a quota or not?

Damian Green: I am in favour of controls. I note that the Minister is not going to answer my questions—[Interruption.] Well, we are debating Government policy, and I think that it is significant that the Government will not explain the effect of that policy.
	The important problem with the Government's lack of candour is not for the Government. They have long ago lost any reputation that they had for straight dealing. The real problem is for the essential confidence in our immigration controls, which we need if we are to have the calm and rational debate that we all want. If no one knows what the Government's underlying purpose is, suspicions about hidden agendas will proliferate. The solution lies in the Ministers' hands, but so far, over the past few minutes, they have failed to offer a solution to the problem that is facing them.
	For instance, the document before us makes the point that only successful professionals, those in tiers 1 and 2, will be allowed to settle permanently in this country. The Conservatives have no problem with that part of the policy. But does it mean that the Government do somewhere have a target number for immigrants who will be allowed not only to work here but to settle here? There are respectable arguments for having such a target, and I am sure that everyone involved in the debate would be fascinated to know whether the Government shared them. The logic of their command paper is that that is where they are going.
	There is clearly a distinction between a free-market approach to the movement of labour, which is common to the main parties—or, at least, common to the Conservatives and those on the Government Front Bench—and a policy that is indifferent to the rate of growth of the population of this country. That is why I emphasise the importance of the different rules on settlement rights between the different tiers. That is hugely important and central to any debate on this issue, yet the Government are trying not to have that debate.
	I would like to move on to some of the details thrown up by the system. The first is the abolition of the right of appeal. The Government have been heavily lobbied on this matter, and I would like the Minister to deal with the points raised by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association about the proposed administrative review that will replace the right of appeal. The association describes it as
	"a manifestly inadequate substitute for a right of appeal against a wrong decision. We have been unable to identify ways in which such a review would differ from the internal reviews that are supposed to happen now, according to the guidance for Entry Clearance Officers".
	Most pertinently, the association quotes from a Department for Constitutional Affairs White Paper "Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals". The White Paper asks what an individual can do if they wish to complain. It goes on:
	"The first and most direct remedy is to dispute decisions directly with departments and agencies. But in a democracy ruled by law, and under a government committed to high quality and responsive public services, simply appealing to a department's sense of fairness is not, and never has been, enough. There has to be redress beyond the department".
	That is an interesting view from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and one that appears to have been manifestly rejected by the Home Office in its proposals for administrative review. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that apparent incoherence between the different Departments.
	Even those of us who are sympathetic to attempts to avoid delays in the system—the point has already been made that the delays often cause intolerable problems for the individuals involved—need to be reassured that the system will be fair. According the DCA's White Paper, it clearly will not be. This concern links with another area of ambiguity, namely the time scale for the introduction of the new system. We have been told that the new system will be rolled out tier by tier, starting with tier 1, which seems perfectly sensible, but it would be reassuring to know the time scale for the later tiers. I understand that it is possible that even tier 2 will not be introduced until 2008. Given that it looks as though it will be many years before the full system is introduced, when will the current appeals be abolished? Will that happen gradually, along with the introduction of each tier?

Tony McNulty: It is not the case that the system will take many years to be introduced. I have said that we will try to get the whole thing done over the next 18 months to two years. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we will need to consult on other elements such as fees and cost structures, as well as on the introduction of tiers. By the time that we rise for the summer, I hope that people will have a far clearer idea of all the assorted time lines involved.

Damian Green: I am grateful for that burst of clarity from the Government Front Bench, which is a rare treat.
	While I am on tier 2, however, let me deal with the vexed question of restaurants, which the hon. Member for Leicester, East rightly raised. We are grateful to him, and I am also grateful to Christine Lee of the North London Chinese Association, and to others including Mr. Enam Ali from the Guild of Bangladeshi Restaurateurs for passing on their detailed concerns about the effect that the new system might have on hundreds of small businesses. I know that the Minister has held meetings on this subject, so he is aware of the main points of concern, which boil down to whether enough chefs with specialist skills will be available to keep Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi and other restaurants going.
	A few days ago, the Home Secretary appeared to say that the way to solve the growing shortage is simply to train replacements in this country. Again, the House deserves some clarity as to whether that is the Government's solution to the problem. Ministers are aware of the concerns that under the current proposals even highly skilled chefs will not score enough points to qualify under tier 2, particularly if they do not have any significant paper qualifications. There is also the issue of benefits in kind, such as accommodation, which is often provided for chefs who come to this country. It is not obvious from the Command Paper how the salary-based allocation of points accounts for that. Mr. Ali, whom I mentioned, said:
	"We can cite numerous examples where the lack of educational opportunity (which is the norm throughout the third world) to gain formal qualifications equivalent to NVQ levels 3 or 4, is being abused by Entry Officers as a pretext for Visa refusal. Typical is the story of a top chef currently running the kitchens of a five-star Bombay restaurant, who cannot gain entry to the UK because he is virtually illiterate."
	Clearly, such sensitive issues will arise.

Tony McNulty: I have spoken to Enam Ali, and I have told him, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman, not to quote constantly examples that are profoundly wrong. Any chef who is currently working and has the skills to work in a five-star restaurant in Bombay will be welcome in this country with open arms under the new system. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, and so is my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). If there are differences, let us address those now.

Damian Green: I am glad that the Minister is confident enough to believe that he is right, and that distinguished Bangladeshi restaurateurs, his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and the whole world—except for him—are wrong. For his sake, I hope that that is the case, as otherwise he is storing up trouble ahead—

Keith Vaz: He will be very hungry.

Damian Green: As the hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position, I strongly recommend that the Minister confines his dining out over the next few months to restaurants where there is a properly qualified chef.
	On the wider question of access to the skills advisory board, some ethnic minority groups feel that they have no easy means of obtaining representation on it. A measure to address that would improve their confidence in the system, which is rather less than the Minister's. [Interruption.] Yes, I am aware that the Minister met them last week. I have spoken to them since that meeting with the Minister, and I can only repeat that he is more confident in his proposals than they are.
	It is worth pausing on the role assigned to the skills advisory board, especially in relation to how much detailed planning and predicting it is expected to do. It will not just have a national responsibility to identify shortages, but will be expected to pick up shortages in each region. It will therefore be required to say how many extra workers are needed in each sector in each region of the country. That sounds perilously close to the kind of micro-management of the job market by Whitehall that has failed so badly in the past. I hope that Ministers are planning to avoid that, and we would welcome early publication of guidelines for the SAB so that we can consider in detail what it will be expected toachieve. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made the point about the sudden drop in demand for IT specialists in 2000, which caught everyone in the labour-predicting industry by surprise. If something like that happened again, the SAB would need to be flexible enough to pick that up on a national and regional level. It is being set a high hurdle.

John Bercow: I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with close interest. He is decently sceptical about the prospects of accuracy in the labour market projections of the skills advisory board. He is probably right to be so, but can I put it to him that it is precisely because of the uncertainties and the rapidity with which demand and supply can change that it is also wise to eschew fixed limits?

Damian Green: There are two separate issues. The point about the skills advisory board, which we welcome as one of the good things about the system, is not to overload it. It is perfectly possible, if it tries to be too prescriptive, that it will be overloaded in an attempt to micro-manage the economy. That is a much bigger problem.
	Another big area of concern is the policing of the system. Both universities and businesses seem to be responsible not just for their current students or employees, but for those who have left. We should be clear that universities and businesses do have responsibilities when they bring people into this country, but it is important that what they are being asked to do is practical. Many of them, especially small businesses, will not have the capacity to act as a police force for their ex-employees, and if the Government expect them to do so, another element of potential chaos will be introduced in the system.
	In addition, how is the public sector to be policed? With the NHS being the biggest importer of migrant labour, who will be responsible for the inevitable offences? Will it be individual NHS trusts? If they are culpable, how will they be punished? There will be something perverse about a trust in deficit, as many of them are, perhaps laying off medical staff, as many of them are, having to pay a fine to another part of government because some of its trainee nurses have gone walkabout halfway through their scheme.

Justine Greening: On that matter, will my hon. Friend ask the Minister whether the new system will take account of skill shortages in countries from which we are getting migrant workers, and whether that should be taken into account in the points-based system?

Damian Green: It certainly should be taken into account. The Minister did not mention it, and perhaps other Members will do so later. Clearly, the brain drain from poorer countries to keep our public services going is a huge issue, which we need to address. It is not a simple issue, as many people involved in international development have argued to me that, for example, the remittances going back to such countries are one of the best forms of aid, because they go into the hands of individuals rather than Governments and therefore get spent properly in the local economy. It is not an open-and-shut case, but I agree that the issue is worth considering.
	My final detailed point is about the practical implementation of the scheme and its reliance on technology. In that regard, it is worth reading out in full paragraph 162 of the Command Paper, in which the Government solemnly say:
	"We do not underestimate the significance of the IT requirement that will be needed to support the new system and we will only roll out any part of the system when it has undergone rigorous testing."
	We will remember those words in the years to come. We can only hope that this will not be another of the expensive technological disasters that have overcome the Home Office and, to be fair, many other Departments in recent years. From the people who brought us the Criminal Records Bureau, Child Support Agency and tax credit systems, among many others, here is another hugely important policy dependent on a new computer system. It is the ultimate triumph of hope over experience.

Justine Greening: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that parallel systems might be running, which could cause even more confusion than introducing a new system on its own?

Damian Green: I am almost certain that there will be parallel systems, that there will be no communication between those running the systems, and that there will be technological disasters. I know nothing of the details of the technology that the Home Office is organising; I simply observe that the Home Office's record, like the record of most of Whitehall in this regard, is so lamentable that it beggars belief that the system will work efficiently. I think that everyone who will be caught up in the early years of its operation should be very afraid.
	There are two causes for concern behind our support for the principles of the system. The first is that, even tonight, the Government are still refusing to say what the effects will be on the numbers coming to this country and the numbers staying in this country. The second is that any good intentions will be lost among the practical difficulties. Any dispassionate observer can have no confidence that the new system will be introduced competently, efficiently and on time. Despite my pessimism, however, I hope that it is.
	We wish the measure well. This country needs a civilised and controlled immigration system, and I hope that the Government will provide one during their remaining years in office. If they do not, the next Government will have to take on that vital task.

Neil Gerrard: I welcome the debate, and a great deal of what is in the White Paper. That is not always the case when I see what the Home Office proposes. We do need clarity in the system: people must be able to understand the rules, because that is good for both employers and applicants. There is no doubt that the present system is far too complex and bureaucratic. Many of us will know of people who have been given work permits and then been refused entry clearance, although it must have been blatantly obvious that some of them would be refused entry clearance before they were given work permits.
	A huge amount of detail remains to be filled in. The White Paper is really no more than an outline, although both the Minister and the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) referred to some of the detail. Neither this debate nor any other debate on the subject that I have heard has dealt adequately with the extent to which a managed migration system should relate purely to economic benefits for the United Kingdom, or—a key question, in my view—with how much attention will be paid to the rights of the people who come here to work. I do not want to see a Gastarbeiter system involving people coming here and working for quite lengthy periods with no rights. That would affect not just those people but the rest of the work force, in ways that I may describe later.
	As for the application process, it is clearly advantageous for both applicant and employer to know what is required and to be able to carry out some self-assessment. In theory at least, that is simpler than the present arrangements. However, I should like the Minister to clarify a couple of points, one of which is about the position of sponsors in some of the tiers.
	Obviously the reliability of a sponsor will matter. I do not object to the suggestion that an employer or educational institution should have a duty to report when someone has disappeared, or has not even taken up an offer. I note, however, that in some cases sponsors themselves will be given either an A or a B grade. I am far from clear about how that will work, especially early in the process, before there has been much experience of the scheme. What assumptions will be involved in deciding whether a sponsor will be given an A or a B? Will there be any arrangements for sponsors to contest their assessments? It could be argued that an A or a B grade could constitute a reflection on the sponsor's reputation. Certainly some sponsors who receive B grades may wish to contest them, for that simple reason.
	As others have pointed out, the system of sponsorships and grading may tend to favour the large employer who continues to import large numbers of workers, rather than the small employer who may find it harder to enter the system. Another question that has been raised concerns the liability of an employer at the end of a contract of employment. I feel that it would be unreasonable to expect a small employer, in particular, to bear any liability once the contract had ended. At the same time, there seems to be no scope for people who may have worked here for two or three years to have a holiday, or to wind up their affairs before they leave.
	Obvious questions have been raised about how the higher tiers will cope with people who may be highly skilled, but who may not have academic qualifications or earn large salaries. I have another concern about tier 1, however. It does not require a job offer or a sponsor; it allows someone to come in purely on the basis of qualifications and earnings—in some instances, perhaps, on the basis of qualifications alone. We must ensure that we do not strip other countries of skilled people whom they cannot afford to lose. We have had discussions of this kind in the past about the health service, but it is not only in the health service that such problems arise.
	What causes me most concern is tier 3, which will probably cover most low-skilled migrants. We know that some sectors, such as agriculture and hospitality, are highly dependent on unskilled labour from outside the United Kingdom. Tier 3 involves a maximum of 12 months, no rights of entry for dependants and no right to switch to another employment route. The White Paper says that that tier will be run by "operators". I should be interested to hear from the Minister who he thinks those operators will be.

Richard Benyon: One of the largest employers in my constituency is the racing industry. Members may be surprised to learn that the Lambourn valley is every bit as multicultural as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is the job of industry, including the racing industry, to make the right representations to those in tier 3—or indeed any tier? Is that not the best way of ensuring that migrant workers want to enter such industries, and that the system works smoothly?

Neil Gerrard: I entirely agree. The Minister has made it clear that he is willing to talk to the various industrial interests, which will have to make their case if they believe that they have one. The skills advisory boards in particular should be consulted, because they will have a key role in identifying skills shortages.
	The point that I was trying to make, however, related to lower-skilled migrants. If we go down the road of effectively shutting out people who are not from other EU countries, what will the possible consequences be? The danger is that that could inadvertently result in more unauthorised people trying to work illegally. Such an approach rests to some degree on an assumption that unskilled work is not really essential work, that it does not matter that much and it does not matter who does it. However, London has a huge number of unskilled people who have come from other countries to do such work. If they were not here, whole sections of London's economy would virtually collapse.
	Reference has been made to the effects on indigenous workers, and to the fear that the presence of migrant workers holds down pay and conditions. In this regard, employment rights for migrant workers are very important. Some of the exploitation of migrant workers that undoubtedly goes on is clearly related to their inability to enforce their employment rights. There could be a number of reasons for such an inability. In some cases, the explanation is simply a lack of knowledge of those rights. We should perhaps ensure that those who work in the tier 3 schemes get information on their employment rights in their own language, so that they can understand them and know what they can do to enforce them. If one examined the evidence, it would doubtless become clear that some migrant workers are being discriminated against on the basis of their immigration status. Migrant workers who are sacked by their employer do not simply lose their jobs, they also lose the right to be in this country. That, in itself, can make it much more difficult for such people to enforce the employment rights that they should be able to enforce.

John Bercow: I am intervening to make a slightly different point. The Government want to maintain a strict distinction between labour migration and asylum seekers, and I understand the reasoning, although I am not comfortable with it. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that frankly, it is a tragedy that the thousands of asylum seekers in this country who are qualified doctors, scientists, engineers and dentists—who are perfectly entitled to be here while they seek asylum—are denied the chance to use their skills, earn a living and benefit Britain. Would it not be good if we extended the very limited right to work that currently applies to asylum seekers?

Neil Gerrard: Of course, at the moment there is no such right to work; there used to be the right to work after six months, but that disappeared. I have always been of the view that we were far too restrictive in our approach. The argument is that such a right would act as a pull, but I have never seen hard evidence to support it.
	One issue that we really must address, but which we shy away from, is the position of those in this country who are working illegally. There is no doubt that in a big city such as London, there are a significant number of such people. We have always approached this issue purely in terms of penalties for employers, which have been difficult to enforce. In the past two or three years we have looked at several different schemes for regularising the immigration status of people who have been in this country for some time, the latest example being the family concession in respect of asylum seekers. One idea that we have never seriously considered, but which we should, is regularising the status of some of those who have worked here illegally for some time. Plenty of other European countries—Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain—have done that in the past seven or eight years, as has the USA. If we go down that road, we can get to grips with some of the exploitation that takes place. That would benefit people who come here legally as migrant workers, but it would also benefit the work force in general.
	I turn finally to the subject of appeals. The lack of a right of appeal is a problem. We have administrative reviews now, and very occasionally an entry clearance case gets turned over on administrative review. The idea of getting rid of appeal rights and ending up with purely administrative reviews always worries me. One inevitable consequence will be more work for me, and for any other Member whose constituency contains a significant number of migrants. Even if the person concerned is not in the country, relatives and potential employers will turn up and ask for help. I would much rather we had a clear system through which such decisions could be challenged.
	As I said at the beginning, I welcome the paper, which shows that we are making serious moves toward a system that makes sense, is clear and transparent and can work. There is a lot of detail to be filled in, however, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue. In particular, I hope that he will examine the lack of employment rights, which is a big gap in our approach to this problem.

Mark Hunter: It is a pleasure to make my first Front-Bench contribution on home affairs in this debate. It is particularly pleasing to welcome the Government's apparent decision to take up Liberal Democrat policy on economic migration, which, I was surprised to learn tonight, is also the Conservatives' policy. My party officially called several years ago for the introduction of a points-based system to determine policy on migrant workers. We believed then, as we do now, that such a scheme would promote a culture of openness on issues relating to immigrant workers and respond to the country's long-term economic needs.
	Before I set out why my party welcomes the broad principles underpinning the Government's new economic migration policy, I want to make two points. First, my party recognises the major contribution that generations of migrant workers and refugees have made, and continue to make, to invigorating our economy, our society and our culture. That is the starting point for our approach to immigration issues, and it is one that can easily be lost. On economic migration, every objective analysis shows conclusively that immigrants have been net contributors to our overall economy, and that their contribution is set to increase in future, as dictated by demographic trends. Our economy simply cannot afford to do without them, and it was pleasing to read that this sentiment was borne out by the consultation undertaken in advance of the Command Paper.
	Secondly, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue tonight. Often, more heat than light is generated on this issue, so I hope that tonight's discussion can involve at least some measure of consensus, as well as sober debate. It provides us with an opportunity to re-state the case for well-managed immigration, and the benefits that it brings to Britain. A points-based system is not a recipe for unlimited immigration, as some Members seem to believe; it is a policy for well-managed immigration. That is precisely why we Liberal Democrats have called for it for so long, and in my view it is what the country wants, too.
	I turn now to why I believe that the proposals are broadly to be welcomed. They recognise the long-term challenges and trends that our country faces. They also recognise that, given an ageing population and the globalised economy, our country needs a migration policy that is flexible, relatively simple and able to adapt to changing needs and pressures.
	In particular, a move towards simplifying what is currently a fiendishly complex system of immigration is long overdue. The complexity of current arrangements is one of the key factors that have contributed to a general lack of confidence in the system. As we all know, it is that lack of confidence that elements in our society will use to exploit fears and stoke up hatred in our communities.
	When it comes to flexibility, it is clear that work permits in their present form are inadequate, especially for meeting the needs of our 21st century economy. An emphasis on plugging skills gaps in the work force and a systematic, strategic approach are self-evidently the right way to proceed to achieve our shared aim of maintaining a competitive economy.
	I also welcome the Government's acknowledgement of the diverse needs of our regions. Clearly, a rigid, whole-country approach would be undesirable. As our city regions continue to take shape, we cannot ignore the fact that their economies develop in different ways and in varying sectors. I hope that the regions will have a genuinely strong voice in discussions and decisions about the assessments made in respect of economic migration.
	In addition, I welcome the overall transparency of the new system. Coupled with simplicity, that transparency provides the key to public confidence. I hope that the new arrangements will give the Government a much better handle on information and statistics related to economic migration. Furthermore, I hope that the information that the policy provides will be used wisely by all concerned.
	I have set out why I and my colleagues welcome the proposals, but now I want to turn to our reservations. The prospect of the large-scale administrative and IT reorganisation of a major part of the Home Office fills me with some dread, as do the potential costs. On pretty much the full range of issues—identity cards, criminal records checks and asylum—there has been a catalogue of disasters in terms of costings, leadership and management. For these proposals to go the same way would be unfortunate, to say the least. We would find ourselves dealing with a system designed to inspire public confidence that was doing precisely the opposite. It would do a great disservice to the good intentions behind these proposals if, as has happened in the past, policy were to be dictated by tabloid headlines.
	The main issue to emerge from this policy is that, in part at least, it spells the end of low-skilled economic immigration from non-EU countries. Although I can accept the Government's premise that Britain and the EU together can meet their own labour needs for the most part, there are some obvious dangers, too.
	There is a real risk that the proposals could lead to even greater exploitation of low-skilled workers, and not just by the small minority of unscrupulous employers who will use and abuse illegal labour. It could also expand the market for people traffickers, snakehead gangs and other criminal organisations. We know that this area of the labour market is notoriously grey already, but I see nothing in the Government's proposals tonight that sets out how they intend to deal with that problem.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point, but it is not for the Command Paper to include those policies. There are extensive policies, in the UK and across the EU, on human trafficking and other matters, but they are not matters for the Command Paper. I can certainly provide them, but he can search for those policies in the Command Paper as much as he likes and not find them, as they do not belong there.

Mark Hunter: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. If he is prepared to send me that background detail, I should very much like to take him up on his generous offer.
	Much of the debate on this issue has been taken up by the specific example of catering workers, some of whom may not fulfil the criteria at any tier of the proposed arrangements. That area of the labour market is just one of many that is likely to be affected, and I hope the new system will have the flexibility and creativity needed to ensure that those sectors of our economy that rely on low-skilled labour are not unduly penalised by the policy.
	Although the plans are clear about Britain's needs, as they should be, will the Minister explain what account will be taken of the needs of other countries? Our responsibilities go beyond merely protecting our own economy, and we should not be in the business of draining talent and skills from countries that can least afford to lose them.
	We are often told about the ethical dimension to Britain's foreign policy, so I should be grateful for similar assurances that our economic migration policy will have a much firmer ethical foundation.

Simon Hughes: One matter follows exactly from the point that my hon. Friend is making, and it concerns those parts of Britain with significant communities of recent immigrants. Members of families already here could come to this country at no cost to the state, as their relatives could house them, and they could then join the work force and exercise their skills. Given that the aim is to build society, community and family, I hope that special attention is given to joining up those families who are willing and able to contribute to the economy. We should not look in different places for people with no previous roots in this country.

Mark Hunter: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to it later.
	My party's other concerns include possible burdens on businesses and universities. Better partnership working is, of course, to be welcomed and, in theory, the proposals on sponsorship have considerable merit. However, bureaucracy has a tendency to expand as time goes on, and I hope that the system is as user friendly in practice as has been promised.
	I notice from the guidance that the Home Secretary can ignore the skills advisory board's views, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not intended to be standard practice. In addition, as flexibility will be a key issue for the SAB, it would be useful if the Minister gave us some indication about the regularity with which the board will report. With seasonal and agricultural labour in particular, any delay on the part of the SAB or the Government could result in worker shortages.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is concerned that the Government should heed the views of the SAB. In most instances, and on the assumption of its competence, I share that view, but does he agree that it is not imperative that the Government always go along with the views of a body that is simply there to advise? However, if Ministers were to decide to go in a different direction, does the hon. Gentleman also agree that they would owe the House an explanation of their reasoning?

Mark Hunter: I very much agree with that, and I guess that the Minister will want to return to the point later on.
	Although I praise the Government's efforts to make the system simpler, and believe that they have largely succeeded in that respect, the process of economic migration into Britain will remain fairly complex. Indeed, the Command Paper praises the fact that the new arrangements will be what it specifically calls "sophisticated". That is why a detailed assessment of the pilot scheme will be necessary, and why lessons must be learned. There will be many links in the overall chain making up this policy and a weakness at any one of them could undermine the system as a whole. Any such problems will need to be ironed out during the phasing process. Anyone who has dealt with the points system for local authority housing—and I guess that that includes many hon. Members present for this debate—will know that it is not necessarily a panacea, and that it certainly does not always produce the right or logical result.
	I believe that the Government are on the right track with the proposals. If they can implement the system efficiently and effectively in the way outlined in the Command Paper and if they can follow up the policy with effective action on illegal entry into Britain, they will have gone a long way to restoring confidence in the system of economic migration. Those are big ifs and the pilot scheme will need detailed scrutiny over the coming months and years if we are to restore confidence in the system.

Andrew Smith: I welcome the measured tone of the previous speech. It is clear from both the speeches of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that they do not have an alternative policy, and that is probably quite a good thing. The more measured a debate we can have about immigration policy issues, the better it will be both for getting the policy right and for the general tone of public debate and community relations.
	I greatly welcome reform, but I have some reservations about the proposed system. I do not disagree that what we have at the moment needs to change. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. It makes sense to rationalise the 80 streams of immigration into something simpler, more transparent and more straightforward, with a clearer sense of people's entitlements. It makes sense to do so with extensive consultation and I welcome the consultation that the Government have undertaken. However, I have some questions on the practicalities of the scheme and on the principle, as well.
	I am glad that the Minister recognised the challenge ahead of him in translating the system into something fair and practicable. When I asked him which of the skill tiers chefs in south Asian restaurants would fall into he gave the honest and clear answer that they could fall into both, depending on their skill level and, I dare say, demand, remuneration and all the other factors that will have to be judged. Given that one of those tiers carries with it the right of settlement after five years and the other does not, there will be some powerful and natural human pressures, as well as all the tensions, and some risk of abuse in the system, which will have to be addressed before the system can be introduced.
	I commend greatly the Minister's commitment to have further discussions with the associations that represent south Asian restaurateurs to put in place a system of sponsorship that enables responsible employers with a record of compliance with immigration and work regulations to employ the workers they need. A lot of care will have to be given to that if we are to have a system in which people have confidence, as well as one that meets the human and economic needs that are in play. I underline the point that has already been made that care will have to be given to ensure that small employers are not disadvantaged, either by their lack of understanding of the system or their inability to deal with the bureaucracy. As Members on both sides of the Chamber are always saying, it is the small employers who generate the jobs in this country. They are the ones who will have to operate the system if it is truly to succeed.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said that there was a key economic test—a test of the economic contribution that workers could make to this country. When we talk about skills shortages in that respect, we sometimes need to think a bit more carefully about the language that we are using. I am not sure that there is a skills shortage; there is a shortage of labour, in different skills categories, ready to work at the going wage rate in that category.
	In those terms, it is perfectly plausible that, at some point in the future, there will be labour shortages in lower skilled categories that may be as great—if not greater—as those in some higher skilled categories. That is why, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement, I asked him whether different groups would be dealt with on a fair basis in that respect. The answer that we should address skills shortages or labour shortages in different skill categories by training applies equally to all the categories—the higher ones as well as the lower ones. Equally, the argument that we might want to meet needs through immigration can apply to the less skilled categories as well as to the more skilled categories. There are some powerful humanitarian arguments as to why that should be the case.
	I wonder whether Ministers share my unease about proposing to bring in a system that is institutionalised discrimination against the least skilled and the poorest. I share some of the concerns voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about what that might mean for the employment rights of those who are working here in the least skilled categories. When someone's right to remain in the country depends on their employer, they are in a vulnerable situation. If a system such as this is to be introduced, it is important that careful attention is paid to the rights and terms and conditions of the workers who are being employed.
	I also worry about the extent to which a system such as that proposed will limit the opportunities for significant groups of people to come here from many Commonwealth countries, with which Britain has historical, cultural and family ties. If there were a demonstrable labour shortage in a relatively low skilled area and even those arriving from central and eastern European states were not filling the vacancies, I wonder whether it would not be fairer if some unskilled workers were allowed in without having their rights curtailed to a year's residence.
	Another question is what happens to someone who enters under the third tier—relatively unskilled—and, during their time here, demonstrates that they can benefit their employer just as much as someone in a more highly skilled tier. Would they be able to earn a change in their status, which would carry with it the right of settlement? It is that sort of practical and very human question that will arise in the operation of the system.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly praised the enormous contribution made to this country by previous generations of immigrants. We do well to remember that those previous waves of immigration included many people who came here as relatively unskilled workers, but who developed their skills and made a big economic contribution. Their families prospered, as did the society that was pleased to have them. It would be sad if we were to deny that possibility to some workers in the future.
	I also worry about what the system will mean for poorer countries. If we take only their most skilled workers, and take none of their relatively unskilled workers, an imbalance will be created. There is a danger that we will take too many of the workers that those countries need and deny many poorer communities the stream of remittances that—as has been pointed out—is an important factor in the relief of poverty there.
	We need to consider all the practicalities of the scheme very carefully. I hope that we might be able to consider, even now, the recruitment of relatively unskilled workers when there is a demonstrable need, so that their settlement rights are not curtailed. Both on human rights grounds and because of the risk of exploitation, there are weaknesses to a system that operates in that way. I hope that there will be further consultation on the system and careful reflection on the points that I have made, so that we end up with a fair and practical system that commands public support because its integrity is beyond reproach.

Peter Lilley: We are asked to consider today a points-based system of managed migration. Most of the management gurus tell us that the important aspect of any management system is not the process, but the objectives towards which it is managed. That is also true of a points-based managed migration system. How it will work will depend above all on the objectives the Government use it to pursue. I wish to discuss, first, what the Government's objectives are, and secondly, what the objectives should be for any points-based managed migration system.
	Happily, we know—not, admittedly, from the Minister's speech, but from other sources—what the objectives of the Government's migration policy are, because they were spelt out objectively by Home Office officials in a Government document that the House required them to produce. That document stated:
	"The government wants to encourage lawful migration to the country . . . sustaining and perhaps increasing current levels of lawful immigration."
	So we know that the Government's objective is to encourage, sustain and increase lawful migration to the UK, presumably using the proposed system to achieve it.
	The Government have certainly been successful in increasing immigration. The net inflow last year was about 223,000 people; more came to settle in the UK than left to return home or emigrate. The figure for net immigration was five times the number Labour inherited in 1997. We know how the Government have achieved that figure: by systematically liberalising the immigration rules. They have trebled the number of work permits granted and drawn to companies' attention the fact that they can bring people from abroad to fill vacancies. In the pamphlet I produced last year, "Too much of a good thing?", I list 10 other liberalising measures that the Government have introduced.
	Above all, we know how the Government will operate a points-based system if they generalise it, because they have already introduced one such system. In 2002, they set up the highly skilled migrants programme, setting the number of points people needed to be able to come to this country and seek work. The Government set the points objectively, to establish the level of skill they thought desirable in anyone given the right to seek work in the UK.
	Only a modest number of people applied under the scheme, however, so did the Government accept that that was the number who should be allowed to immigrate? No, they promptly reduced the number of points needed to acquire right of entry under the scheme to such a degree that the system was overwhelmed. We know that the Government will, if need be, manipulate a points-based system to achieve their objectives of encouraging, sustaining and possibly increasing immigration.
	What should be the objectives of a points-based system? First, let us dispose of the notion that one objective should be to exclude economic immigrants because they are intrinsically undesirable. The caricature of economic migrants as welfare scroungers, driven by a desire to milk our benefit system, prone to criminality and a danger to society is not simply wrong; it is by and large the reverse of the truth. For most of my life, I have lived in areas where there was a large number of immigrants. I have known them as my neighbours, worked with them as my constituents and worshipped in the same Churches, and I have concluded, like anybody who knows the facts, that the vast majority of people who come to the UK to work are decent, hard-working and law-abiding.
	Conservatives particularly admire two virtues that characterise economic migrants; they tend to be enterprising—they have to be to get to this country—and to be driven by family commitment and cohesion. We are biased in their favour. In the language of "1066 And All That", we think immigrants are "a Good Thing", but the implication, common to both sides of the debate, is that we need to manage migration and that we need to restrict it—that we can have too much of a good thing, and there should be limits.
	Secondly, let me dispose of the notion that the reason for managing migration is that immigrants take British jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said earlier, that idea is based on the lump of labour fallacy. In any well-working market the number of jobs will sooner or later equal the number of people seeking work, who will price themselves into jobs and by obtaining them generate extra demand, exactly equal to the amount of demand that they have absorbed from the labour market. However, precisely the same fallacies lie behind the Government's claims that we need workers to fill shortages.
	Whereas those who want to play the race card argue that there is a lump of labour—a fixed amount of work to do—and that, if we allow in immigrants, there will be too many of them and they will take some of that fixed amount of jobs and some of our people will be out of the work, the anti-racists, including the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, say that there is a fixed amount of work, but that there are not enough people to do it and that we must therefore import them from abroad. That is the same fallacy, based on the same logical mistake that there is a lump of labour, that prices do not work and that extra workers do not create extra demand.
	Indeed, the very idea of a shortage in a properly functioning market is problematic. The vice-chairman of the US Commission on Immigration Reform said:
	"the very phrase . . . 'labour shortage' provokes puzzlement or amazement among most informed analysts of . . . labour markets."
	His colleague added:
	"Long term labour shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. That is not to say they don't exist. They are created when employers or Government agencies tamper with the natural functioning of the wage mechanism."
	So shortages can occur only in unusual circumstances.
	The idea that we suffer from a generalised labour shortage is denied by the evidence. The symptom of a shortage in any market economy is a rising price. If we had a labour shortage in this country, we would see wage inflation, but we have never had a period of lower wage inflation in our lives. The idea that we are suffering from a labour shortage is manifestly untrue.
	The idea that importing labour fills established shortages has also been disproved by the facts. The Prime Minister began some years ago to say that there are 500,000 vacancies in the British economy and that we need to employ people from abroad to fill them. Some years later, we have imported more than 500,000 people; there are still 500,000 vacancies in the British economy. So that theory has not been proven, because all those who come to work in this country and get jobs generate as much demand for additional work to fulfil their consumption needs—the goods and services that they consume—as they fill any shortage that exists before they arrive. That is why that theory simply does not work in this or any other country: we do not end shortages by importing workers.
	As for shortages in certain sectors, they can surely only persist if pay is not allowed to rise to the market-clearing level that will attract people to acquire those skills domestically. If pay is held down artificially in sectors by importing people from abroad who are willing to work at below the market-clearing level for this country, a temporary shortage can be rendered permanent. Of course, the pay will not rise to the level at which people in the domestic market will acquire those skills, so people must continue to be imported from abroad. That has clearly happened in a number of professions in this country, particularly in public sector health and medical services.
	The Government's whole theory that there are endemic shortages that can be filled only from abroad is, by and large, wrong. We should avoid becoming permanently reliant on immigration to provide any skill that can and should be acquired by the resident population. We should allow the market to work, with pay rates rising to levels that attract people from the resident population to acquire those desired skills. Even if we import people to meet short-term difficulties, we should not allow that to be used as a reason to depress pay rates in that sector. That would allow the shortage to become permanent.
	What the system should do is focus on giving work permits to people with skills that people in this country cannot acquire by the normal processes that are used to fill vacancies. There are such skills and, in the past, they have been the main reason for importing workers from abroad. The first such type of skill is company-specific skills. Companies have their own way of doing things and those that operate worldwide will often want to bring their accountant to this country to install their accounting system here, to train people to operate that system or to introduce their work-flow processes. For all the systems that IBM or Coca-Cola have, they will bring workers here to establish the systems. In due course, those workers will probably return home having transmitted the skills that are specific to that company to people in this country. That is fine and right; we ought to encourage that process. If anything, we should make it easier for international companies to transfer personnel from subsidiary to subsidiary across the world so that they can transfer the specific skills that have been developed internally within those companies.
	The second type of skill that one cannot easily just acquire is entrepreneurship. I believe that entrepreneurs are born rather than made. If we can import more entrepreneurs who will generate high-quality jobs in this country for other people, that is excellent. Let us do that. It is another reason that we have traditionally given for granting work permits.
	Another category is that of star performers—the people of outstanding skills at an international level. Many sectors of the City need a star performer in their analytical or sales teams. In medicine, one may need a star performer to develop a particular team and its expertise. We should bring in the star performers and, around them, they will generate teams and create jobs and wealth for those of us who star less in those professions.
	Very rarely, there can be cases in which economies of scale mean that it is impossible to recruit domestically sufficient people with the particular skill for a post because we do not have the people with the basic aptitudes to fill such posts. An industry the size of the City probably could not meet all its needs from the domestic population, so it is perfectly reasonable to allow it to bring in additional people from abroad to build the huge wealth-generating capacity that the City has.
	We therefore need to encourage some immigration. Some immigration is a good thing, but I use the analogy of oil and petrol. We need some oil in a car or it will not go at all. However, putting more and more oil in it does not make it go any faster. It is not like petrol. The Government seem to think that immigration is more like petrol than oil. They think that if they put the foot on the accelerator and encourage people to come, the economy will grow faster and faster.
	We need some sensible targeted immigration through a managed points-based system. However, to respond to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), why do we need to worry about numbers? If immigrants are a good thing—in my view, they are; by and large, they are admirable people—why do we want to impose any restrictions at all? The answer is that we are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. South-east England, including London, is more densely populated even than the Netherlands. It is absurd to suggest that there not enough people here to run a good economy. It is absurd to suggest that we need to—or even can—attract relatively large numbers of people. It is absurd to suggest that we ought to be a country of immigration. For most of our history we have been a country of net emigration, and it is only in recent years that we have become a country of net immigration.

Pete Wishart: What would the right hon. Gentleman say to countrymen of mine who face the fastest depopulation in the whole of western Europe? I accept that there might be overheating in the south-east of England, but we will have chronic problems unless we address our population issues and crisis.

Peter Lilley: The idea that southern England needs to be encouraged to import masses of people because Scotland is unable to retain its own population would be wrong. In any case, I have good news for the hon. Gentleman: the flow from Scotland to the rest of the UK has ceased and reversed. The latest figures show that there is now a net flow back to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, so he need not worry too much. Keep up the good work and make the country as attractive as the rest of the United Kingdom and it is all solved—[Interruption.] I speak as someone who is half-Scottish and wants to see that happen. I have to add that Scotland is intrinsically perhaps the most attractive part of the United Kingdom, but the political policies that have been pursued there in recent years have had the negative effects that the hon. Gentleman bravely pointed out.
	It is sensible to have some limits on the number of people coming here. We know from the Government's forecasts that they expect the population of the United Kingdom over the next quarter of a century to increase—predominately in the south-east of England—by some 6 million or 7 million people, of whom 85 per cent. will be the result of expected net immigration into this country, even assuming, as the Government do, that the rate of such immigration diminishes sharply from the rate that we experienced last year. I hope that the Government will use their proposed policy to allow sensible forms of immigration, rather than as a cover for substantial continuing immigration that will cause the pressures on housing and land use and the creation of congestion that we in the south-east have seen, but the Government refuse to acknowledge, which lie behind the problems that I and most of my colleagues in neighbouring constituencies constantly face as we are urged to build more and more houses for more and more people.

Keith Vaz: I start with an apology—I have already apologised to the Minister—for not being able to be here at the end of the debate. However, bearing in mind that the Minister and the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, were on their feet for an hour and five minutes, I do not think that many issues will need to be clarified in the wind-ups. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on his maiden Front-Bench speech. It was a model maiden speech that went on for only 13 minutes, and I hope he makes many contributions from the Front Bench of that length.
	I pay tribute to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality for the work that he has done to ensure that we have the beginnings of an appropriate system for immigration control. I was going to praise the scheme even more and embellish my praise, but the hon. Members for Ashford and for Cheadle both claimed ownership of it as Conservative and Liberal Democrat policy. Whoever's policy it is, it is right that we have taken the trouble to spend time examining the various schemes that operate in the policy area and reducing the number of schemes from 80 to five. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I have reservations about aspects of the way in which the system will operate.
	The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality will know from his constituency experience the importance of getting our immigration policy right because it deals with not only the people mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—those coming in—but those who are here: the settled community. It is absolutely vital that we deal with immigration policy sensibly and maturely, and having an Adjournment debate rather than a whipped vote on an aspect of policy makes it easier to do so. However, when we have had whipped votes on immigration policy in the past three or four years, the House has not divided.
	I hope that the system that we are debating today will enable us to achieve clarity on the way in which applications are made. One concern that has always been with me since I started to do immigration work in my constituency is the complexity of the work permit scheme. Sometimes, a work permit is issued in Sheffield, but when the applicant is interviewed in Mumbai or New Delhi, the application is turned round. In such cases, the trouble and expense of obtaining the work permit is suddenly put to one side, which creates enormous difficulties for enterprises that rely on bringing people into the country in order to fill the skills gap.
	In introducing a new policy, I am also concerned that we bring members of staff with us so far as the facilities at Sheffield and Lunar house are concerned. It is important in dealing with a new set of rules that those who will implement the policy are fully up to speed with what has been proposed and that they are also part of the mechanism by which we improve the system.
	I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the results of the recent inquiry into the immigration and nationality directorate in his winding-up speech. I thought that the Minister was a bit harsh on the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), because she raised issues about the way in which the IND operates, such as the length of time that it takes for hon. Members to obtain replies to questions. I, too, have received letters from the IND about cases that I have been dealing with for several years, and those problems have not been resolved. I know that the IND has a new director-general, Lin Homer, who has brought a fresh approach to the way in which it operates, but when one writes to constituents and tells them that their case will be dealt with in 13 weeks, it is important that they receive a response within that period.
	Although the Minister has provided a written answer to the allegations made by Mr. Panmani about the problems that have occurred in the IND, we have not received a definitive response from him on the steps that he has taken. He identified the serious problems and set up the inquiry very quickly, and I congratulate him on doing so, but it is important that he makes it clear that those matters have been dealt with and that those responsible for some of the practices at the IND have been dealt with severely. Confidence in the system means confidence in those who are administering the system, which means those at Lunar house and other Home Office facilities.
	We also need a more joined-up approach on the decision-making process. A lot of the information gathering will take place at the overseas posts, so we should not underestimate the importance of the entry clearance system. I know that the hon. Member for Ashford has referred to that point in passing, but it is important that we get the decisions right in the overall way in which we deal with immigration cases. We must realise that those applications will be considered here, but when we get the information from the overseas posts, it is vital that it is as accurate as possible.
	I also share the legitimate concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about the right of appeal.
	At today's sitting of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, we took evidence from the president of the asylum and immigration tribunal, Sir Henry Hodge, and the lead judge of the administrative court, Mr. Justice Collins, who was worried and concerned about the tribunal's backlog. He said that it was 80,000 cases. He has opened all the cupboards at the tribunal's offices, and he found that there were more cases than he thought. We asked whether the abolition of the right of appeal under the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Bill would help, as there will not be any rights of appeal on work permits and in student cases, but he said that it would not make any difference. Why abolish or prevent appeals, when it is possible to have a system that will allow someone other than the departments themselves to scrutinise decisions by officials? It is vital that we reconsider the issue and make sure that there is a right of appeal. In my view, that is the most important way in which we can guarantee that justice is done. The scheme has been set up, and its broad thrust is apparent. I accept that the Minister is not going to announce today that the right of appeal is to be retained or restored, but I hope that he accepts that abolishing it will not suddenly reduce the number of cases brought to tribunal, as the president of the immigration appeal tribunal says that it will not make any difference.
	Finally, may I raise the subject of chefs, to which I have previously referred? I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting colleagues and myself to discuss the issue. There are some fine restaurants in his constituency of Harrow, East, in Harrow and in Stanmore. It is an important industry for Britain—10,000 restaurants make 2 million curries every week—worth £2.5 billion. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and other hon. Members have a favourite Indian restaurant. It is probably run by Bangladeshis, but they are called Indian restaurants, so let us be fair to them all and call them south Asian restaurants. If the Minister goes to the Maurya restaurant on Stanmore broadway on Saturday and asks the owner about his chef, he will discover that he has come from abroad. If he goes to the Tales of India restaurant on Buckingham parade in Stanmore he will find that the chef has come from Sylhet. If he goes to the fine restaurants in Harrow, they will say that their chefs are brought to this country. They will all say that there is a shortage of specialist chefs now. The Minister says that the scheme, with its wonderful tiers, will solve the problem of shortages. He guarantees that no chef who has cooked in a five-star restaurant in Mumbai will be refused admission because he cannot get into tier 2. That is a significant challenge. I guarantee that many chefs in five-star hotels on the sub-continent will want to come to work in our country.

Peter Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: I will do so if the right hon. Gentleman's intervention is about chefs.

Peter Lilley: As a crass economist, may I ask why there is a shortage of chefs? Could it be that their pay is not enough to attract people from the community in this country to do the job? The rate is held down by the constant flow from abroad.

Keith Vaz: No, that is not the reason. The right hon. Gentleman can go and visit his fine Indian restaurant in St. Albans. I dined in the Royal Bengal with his next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), only last Thursday, when we talked about the chefs who come to Hertfordshire. They come there because those restaurants advertise in jobcentres and in the ethnic press. They advertise to find somebody who is able to take up that employment at the price that is right for the industry. They get no responses because nobody wants to work in those restaurants, not because of the price, but because they do not have the skills.
	The problem is partly cultural. The Home Secretary said that his special adviser on these matters was Mrs. Delia Smith. I picked up the last Delia Smith cookbook, but I saw no curries in it. The Home Secretary and the Minister think the answer is to set up training schools for chefs. The younger generation do not want to become chefs. They want to find other careers. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He can come with me and I will show him restaurants. The younger generation do not want careers in that industry. It is not a question of money. That is why restaurant owners have to look abroad.

Jim Cousins: The point that my hon. Friend is making about chefs applies equally to halal butchers of the most expert, religiously trained and skilful kind.

Keith Vaz: Absolutely, and my hon. Friend will not find many of those in Hertfordshire. People have to be brought from abroad to fill such posts. That is what worries me.
	I like the Minister. I have known him for many years and I know that he cares deeply about the ethnic minority community. He is assiduous in attending their functions, eating their meals and being part of the local community in Harrow, so he has first-hand experience of these matters. I put him to the test. He tells me that the new points-based system will deal with the 20,000 vacancies in the industry. He says that the people who do not qualify as chefs and who have no skills will qualify under one of the other tiers and will come from one of the new member states of the European Union.
	We welcome the arrival of those from the new member states. They have made a huge contribution to our economy. Almost 330,000 have come to the UK and helped our economy greatly. They are doing jobs because they have the skills to do those jobs. Only a tiny minority of those who came from the new member states are on benefits. If they come in order to work in restaurants, they come on a temporary basis. That is not a career path for them, as it is for someone who comes from Sylhet, joins a Bangladeshi restaurant in Harrow and wishes to learn the skills and remain part of that industry. That is the difference between the short-term fix that the arrival of the new member state population will give us, and the long term.
	My hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that when Germany, France and the other countries change their derogations and allow Polish and Czech workers to go to their countries and work on the same basis as we allow them to work in the UK, we will have the same shortage again and we will have to look abroad. I ask him to be very careful about this. The industry is important for us and we want to make sure that it remains successful, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said. Please monitor the scheme and make sure that there is a long implementation so that if things go wrong, we can put them right. In the end, when we judge the new scheme, the proof will be in—to coin a phrase—the rasmallai.

Jeremy Wright: I preface my remarks by saying that whenever this House debates immigration, it is important that we use clear and precise language. We must also set our remarks in the proper context. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that I am not merely tolerant of immigration into this country but positively in favour of it.
	As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, immigration contributes not only to our economic life but, far more broadly, to our cultural, political and social life. Perhaps this debate has been far too narrowly focused on economics, although I fully understand that that is because it is primarily about a system for managing economic migration. Nevertheless, it is right to recognise the other effects that immigration has and to say very clearly that we should not regard immigrants who come to this country for economic purposes merely as a transitory work force who are here only to satisfy our economic needs—because they can do much more, and should be encouraged to do so. I am referring primarily to the tiers in the system that may lead to economic migrants remaining in this country in the long term, or permanently, and subsequently becoming fully fledged citizens of this country. That is an exceptionally worthwhile progression, and surely something from which we, as well as they, can benefit.
	Whenever we debate immigration we should face up to the hard truths. Perhaps in this House above all, those of us who feel strongly on this subject should be able to say what we think. There should be no check on what we say based on a fear that we may have of being labelled in a certain way. Whatever the Minister may have said at the outset, there is very little dispute between Members on either side of the House about the fact that it is clearly true that not everybody who wishes to come to live and work in this country can be accommodated here.
	The Government have therefore sensibly conceded that there must be a mechanism whereby we decide which of those aspirant immigrants can come here and which cannot. The points-based system has a great deal to commend it, as is clear from the fact that Members on both sides of the House have spoken in favour of the general principles that underpin it. In effect, it assesses potential immigrants on the basis of what they have to offer this country economically. It can also inform the way in which we engage with recent immigrants once they have gone through the process that the system defines and we know who can come here to work, who will stay for the long term and who for the shorter term, and in what way they will contribute economically to this country.
	Once we have established the principle whereby we allow people to migrate economically into this country because they have something to contribute, which is perfectly sensible, we can easily apply it to everything else that immigrants do in this country. Immigrants contribute not only to our economic life but to our arts, drama and music, and, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) eloquently pointed out, to our culinary life. It is vital that we regard all those aspects in the round.
	If we say to economic immigrants, "You are welcome in this country if you have something to contribute to our economy," we would also be right to say, "You have the obligation to contribute in other ways, too, if you stay in this country in the long term. You are obliged to participate in our life as a nation and comply with our laws." A crucial point, which the system recognises but the Minister did not mention specifically, is expecting people who come to participate in the life of the country to learn the language. It is right to include language ability in the assessment criteria. We, as a nation, should offer those who come to live here opportunities to learn our language so that they can participate fully. That must be our objective.
	I would congratulate the Government if they took a profoundly sensible step, which would have a long-term impact on the way in which those who migrate to our country are assimilated, and help to welcome them as they should be welcomed. The Government should develop a system whereby those who become citizens of this country undergo a ceremony that formally recognises that. It is right to welcome those who become immigrants to this country properly. There should be formal recognition of those who commit to this country and become a citizen of it or an immigrant to it. They should be told that they are welcome and that we hope that they contribute not only to the economic life of our country but in many other ways.

Tony McNulty: The elements that the hon. Gentleman properly describes are not in the document because it deals with the managed migration system. As I said to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), we havesubstantive policy documents on integration, nationality, settlement, citizenship rights, the right to life in the UK and tests of language requirements, all of which I am more than happy to send to the hon. Gentleman. He makes fair points, but they are not appropriate for inclusion in the document.

Jeremy Wright: I follow the Minister's argument, but there is more advantage in the proposals than simply the ability to manage a system of economic migration. They also constitute an opportunity to establish clearly from the outset that people who come to this country can make a contribution, but that there are also expectations of them. The system's ability to admit those who can make a contribution benefits not only the economy but many other aspects of life. I understand the Minister's points, but the debate could be allowed to go a little wider, and that is what I have tried to do in my contribution.
	However, with the reservations that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) expressed about whether the detail of the system will work as it should, I want to make it clear that I support what lies behind the scheme, not only because it is a way of managing economic migration but because it is a factor in a more wide-ranging system, which we can use to ensure that immigration works for the benefit of those who already live here and those who, quite properly, wish to do so.

Pete Wishart: It will not surprise hon. Members if I approach the matter from a slightly different perspective—from the north. In Scotland we have chronic demographic problems. As I said to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), we have the fastest falling population in Europe. For the first time in a century our population will drop below the symbolic 5 million mark by 2017, and is expected to fall below 4.5 million by 2041. We are the only constituent part of the United Kingdom with population decline on such a scale. For example, in the same period—up to 2041—we expect a population increase of some 7 million, which is a rise of 12 per cent., in England.
	In the past decade we have attracted only 4.7 per cent. of migrants, although our total population is 8.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. Our demographic problems have been described as the single biggest challenge that faces Scotland in the medium to long term. Those are not my words but those of Labour First Minister Jack McConnell. He does not get many things right, but that assertion was absolutely correct.
	It is clear from those headline figures that something is not working. If any constituent part of the United Kingdom needs creative and imaginative solutions to address this decline, it is Scotland. It is also clear that Scotland's problems are so different from the basic challenges faced by the rest of the United Kingdom that they must have Scottish-based solutions.
	The simple fact is that we need people to come to Scotland. For our population merely to stand still, we shall need between 8,000 and 10,000 people to come each year for the next decade. If we do not achieve that, there will be massive consequences for every sector of our community. There will be a huge impact on our general economy, and deterioration in our community infrastructure and public services. Scotland will simply lose its competitiveness compared with other small nations in Europe.
	To see how other small nations deal with such pressures, we need only to look across the Irish sea to the Republic of Ireland, a country in charge of its own immigration policy. It faced massive problems in the first half of the last century, with high levels of emigration from its shores, but it is now attracting migrants on a large scale. In fact, it has had nearly five times as many migrants as Scotland over the past few years. It is now introducing a green card system that will allow it to tackle its population problems much more impressively than we can in Scotland.
	I detect in the general UK-wide immigration policy an underlying attempt to keep people out and to discourage them from coming here—I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not the case, and I respect the fact that the points-based system is an attempt to address the problems—but that is entirely the opposite of what Scotland needs. We need people to come in, and we need policies to attract them.

Charles Walker: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Scotland is having so many problems attracting people to live north of the border?

Pete Wishart: We are having those difficulties because we do not have control of our immigration policies. We have an Executive who have made sure that Scottish economic performance is way below that of the rest of the United Kingdom and of similar-sized countries in the rest of Europe. That is why we are having difficulty in acquiring the skilled migrants that we need. We need our own distinct policies to attract people if we are to deal with these problems.
	Will the new points-based system help Scotland to address those challenges? Scotland's particular difficulties are acknowledged by the fact that someone would have to have lived in Scotland for only two years before residency was granted. That is half the length of time required in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a further concession, in that a skills shortage list will be drawn up to target the skills shortages there, especially in the oil and gas industries. That is all very well, and all very welcome, but is it enough to address the chronic underlying problems?
	To answer that question, we need to understand how the scheme will be administered. We have heard that that will be done through the skills advisory board. A further concession to Scotland has been made in theproposal for one Scottish representative—from Futureskills Scotland, I believe—to sit on the SAB. However, that will just be one Scottish voice in a chorus of UK-wide voices. Regardless of how forceful and articulate that one Scottish voice might be, it will necessarily be subsumed into the chorus of voices representing UK-wide interests.
	I asked the Minister in an intervention about the future of the fresh talent initiative. That was the Scottish Executive's response to our chronic demographic and population problems. Feeble though it was, it was all we had. It was a programme that was able to attract skilled migrant workers into Scotland. However, the Minister's response to my intervention suggested that the fresh talent initiative has now gone, leaving us with no competitive advantage over the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland's population problems will therefore be further entrenched.
	How will the residency system work itself out? We welcome the fact that it will take only two years to get residency in Scotland, but because we have no distinct or separate immigration service, what will happen after those two years? Will people naturally slip down to London or the south-east of England? How will we be able to retain those people in Scotland after that two-year period has been concluded?
	Many commentators have mentioned that the new points-based system is similar to the scheme operating in Australia. In many ways it is almost identical, but with one crucial and significant difference: Australia has full devolution of immigration responsibilities to state level. States can manage their own immigration requirements and introduce policies and approaches that will help them address some of their problems. Many states, such as South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, experience challenges similar to those faced by Scotland, but the Australian system allows those states the flexibility to control their immigration policy.
	Australia has recognised the benefits of area-specific migration policy for the past 10 years, and has benefited significantly from being able to control immigration policy, determine priorities and give residency status to migrants way beyond what is required for the normal Australian model. If that can work in Australia with a system of state federal government, why can it not work in the UK with devolved government? Scotland has a Parliament in Edinburgh and distinct and different immigration requirements, so why cannot it have the proper powers to address those?
	Of course, the most effective way of tackling our demographic problems would be to have the full powers of a normal small nation. We only need to look at Ireland as an example. With the introduction of its green card, it is building on successive decades of success in attracting migrants. We can only look at that jealously, and reflect on what could be achieved in Scotland were we able to do that.
	Since the emergence of the Celtic tiger economy in the 1990s, Ireland has seen a huge turnaround in immigration. My reply to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) is that Ireland has benefited from being in charge of its economic policy and being able to determine its own agenda in terms of economic policies and prosperity.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely interesting point about the contrast between Ireland and Scotland over the past 15 years or so. Will he reflect on the fact that the principal reason for that is that the Irish economy has moved in a steadily deregulated direction, while the Scottish economy, under a Lib-Lab Government, has moved in a steadily over-regulated one?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments and observations; he is probably correct. I am glad that his party's shadow Chancellor acknowledged the success of Ireland on his visit there. Seeing companies such as Google and Bloomberg settling in Ireland as opposed to London is also very positive. It all suggests to me what could be achieved in Scotland if we had our hands on those powers. Being able to adopt that approach and that type of policy would make such a difference to the Scottish economy and the destiny of my nation.

Peter Lilley: I believe that the Scottish Parliament has the power to reduce taxation. Does the hon. Gentleman's party support that as a way of attracting more people to Scotland?

Pete Wishart: If anything, that is a trick question, and I will resist the temptation of venturing an answer. Scottish parliamentary elections will take place next year, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wait with great anticipation to see what the fiscal policy of the Scottish National party will be.
	To conclude, Scotland's immigration requirements are so far out of kilter with those of the rest of the Untied Kingdom that we must have specifically Scottish solutions to deal with them. We have introduced the idea of a green card system, similar to the Irish model, and we need to adopt such imaginative creative approaches. If we do not, we will continue to see economic decline and deterioration in the quality of life in Scotland. I again urge the Minister to consider the Australian model, how it has devolved power to state level and whether it is suitable and appropriate for Scotland. Surely we need our hands on the tiller so that we can use such powers to make a real difference to what is described as the biggest challenge facing Scotland in the medium to long term.

Tony McNulty: On the whole, my opening remarks about welcoming such a debate were well made, because it has been, on the whole, an interesting debate. Many extremely reflective and thoughtful contributions have been made on the substance, details and practicalities of the new system, without demurring from the overall shape and framework of the system. For that, I am enormously grateful.
	I shall not spend undue time on each and every point that has been made, but I shall deal with the broad thrust of what Members have said. One theme was how lower-skilled workers fitted into the overall system. That was a moot point, particularly for my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). We need to consider wider issues, such as the need not to build in too much reliance on what may appear, at least at this stage, to be an unending stream of people from eastern Europe and the A8 countries making very positive contributions.
	The key point must be that the system rises and falls with the needs of the economy. In an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) described himself as a crass economist. Without, I think, being unduly offensive, I will give the right hon. Gentleman "crass", because I did not agree with his comments at all. I thought that his attempts to analyse a labour market were quite fourth-form. We have heard such views before. We have heard them put less eloquently by Sir Andrew Green and other characters, and we heard them put far less eruditely by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green).
	I am afraid that the position of Conservative Front Benchers is still deeply confused. I will give them this: if we deem May and June 2005 to be the immediate election and post-election period, while it appears that the leadership has reached October or November of that year in its Pauline conversion to things more civilised, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is stuck somewhere around the day before the election. Neither of those speeches was terribly good.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East—he has left, but he told me that he would have to—is entirely right. If our managed migration system is indeed driven by the questions "What are the needs of the economy?" and "What are the needs of the country?", it is obtuse to talk of limits, numbers and quotas to the extent that the hon. Member for Ashford did—or, worse, to talk in a "second gunman on the grassy knoll" conspiratorial way about the liberal elite simply wanting to get more and more migrants here, for what purpose I do not entirely understand.
	I really thought—and most contributions acknowledged this—that in welcoming the points-based system we had reached a stage at which there could and should be mature reflection on the needs of the UK economy. I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) that the sum of what migrants have contributed to this country goes far beyond the economic dimension, entering social, cultural and other dimensions. However, the thrust of any managed and controlled migration system must be principally economic.

Damian Green: The Minister is adept at spraying around words such as "obtuse" and "uncivilised", which he has used in the last three minutes, but less adept at answering a simple question. Does he agree with the former Home Secretary that there is no obvious upper limit on legal immigration to this country?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman may talk of my "spraying around" phrases, but if he is obtuse, he will be described as obtuse.

Damian Green: Answer the question.

Tony McNulty: The answer to the question is simply put in the living, breathing elements of the points-based system. What is required by the country and the economy is the appropriate level of migration. It is facile and fatuous in the extreme to talk of upper limits, as happened during the general election. The hon. Gentleman would have it that the country needs a certain number of migrants for the next decade—x migrants—and that is it. Regardless of whether parts of the economy are starved of skills that particular migrants might have, the view of the Conservative party and the hon. Gentleman is that the future of the economy and the vibrancy of the country can go hang if we reach x + 1: one above the facile and fatuous quota that he would set for migration.
	The hon. Gentleman's facile argument—it is not a conspiratorial one involving Back Benchers—is that the liberal elite want more and more migration. I repeat: the premise for any managed migration system must be the prevailing economic needs of the United Kingdom in the next five to 10 years that will not be met by the EU-wide labour market. That must be the only driver. However, the hon. Gentleman has some other intention and, once again, he deliberately conflates—he needs to stop doing so if he wants to remain on the Opposition Front Bench—race, community cohesion, asylum, immigration and a whole range of other matters. This is all that a quota is about, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Damian Green: If I had done anything like that, I would be ashamed of myself, but the person who should be ashamed of himself is the Minister. Nothing that I have said this evening could conceivably be construed as having anything to do with damaging race relations in this country. Both this evening and in every speech that I have made since taking this job, I have deliberately made it clear that the cross-over between asylum and immigration is often done improperly, and that they are two entirely separate areas. The Minister demeans his office by making this cheap insult.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse. He has offered the view that the scheme lacks rationality without a quota. He has said, in terms, that it cannot constitute a way forward unless we say what the limit on immigration should be, and he condemned himself with that fatuous claim. It is as fatuous as his even more obtuse claim at the last election that an asylum limit or quota should somehow be established. How, in the context of the 1951 convention, that can possibly be done defies belief; so, subconsciously or otherwise, he is obtusely conflating all the issues that the Conservative party deliberately conflated at the last election. That is a matter of regret, because the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not do so and neither did the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's economic analysis and, therefore, his conclusions, but he did not conflate such issues in the scurrilous way that the hon. Member for Ashford did.

Damian Green: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: No—I am bored. The hon. Gentleman is boring me now. He has nothing of substance to offer, which is a shame because most the contributions were thoughtful and reflective and raised very real concerns about low-skilled workers and, for example, the practicality of administrative reviews compared with appeals. Such issues are still being discussed.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on making a thoughtful maiden Front-Bench contribution. I would have liked to congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but I shall not because he spoke absolute nonsense. The notion that, in a UK setting, Scotland's answer in respect of immigration is to have its hands on all the tillers is bunkum—unless the hon. Gentleman is going to explain, in his own paper on a points-based system, perhaps, that border guards will be stationed at Hadrian's wall to let people in and out of Scotland, and that there will be various other port controls.
	Scotland is an integral part of the UK and its problems—I accept that they are very real; I have discussed them extensively with the Executive—will best be dealt with by the Scottish Executive and the UK Government sitting down together and working them through. Some matters are devolved and are therefore particular to the Executive, who have done a great deal of work to increase Scotland's attractiveness as an inward investment destination—very successfully—and as a destination for migrants. I congratulate them on that and as I said to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire when he intervened, there are further measures we can take in respect of the points-based system, and we are talking to the Scottish Executive about them. But the notion that, once Scotland is independent and free at one leap of London's tyranny, all its very real demographic problems will be solved is absolute bunkum.

Pete Wishart: I am astonished at the Minister's response to a rather measured inquiry. Why cannot what happens in Australia, or between Northern Ireland and Ireland, happen in Scotland too? Those are examples of how the devolution of immigration can work to help the states involved significantly. I merely want the best solution for Scotland.

Stephen Pound: Australia is different.

Tony McNulty: As my hon. Friend notes from a sedentary position behind me, Australia is entirely different—in scale, geography, history, and in terms of its economic needs and demands. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to lump together the Australian system and the points-based system proposed for this country. Essentially, and critically, the UK is not a federal system in quite the same way as are Australia's six states and one territory.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire draws parallels with Ireland, and conveniently suggests that Irish history began about 12 years ago. He prays in aid a small nation that, until recently, was the one European country with a population much smaller than it was 100 years ago, for all the obvious reasons. I am the son of an Irish economic migrant, and I glory in the success of the Irish economy, but the parallels that the hon. Gentleman draws are, at best, hysterical—I am sorry, I mean ahistorical, although they are probably hysterical as well. They are not appropriate in any way, shape or form, not least for reasons to do with regulation.
	As I said earlier, I am enormously gratified by the overwhelmingly positive welcome that the Command Paper has received. We will go further by the summer, when we will lay out what we consider to be the next steps, in respect of both consultation and detail. We do not underestimate the nature of the task in any way.
	Another piece of nonsense to emerge from the debate was the myth that the CRB is a basket case in IT terms. That is not true: the CRB is hugely successful, and works very well. As with passports, the problem was that not enough time was allowed for the introduction of new systems, which were introduced in a big-bang fashion. The things that have been said about the CRB and the passport regime are of no relevance now, even though they are constantly offered as shibboleths for explaining why Government IT systems fail.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East made a good point about the sophisticated requirements for training and resourcing entry clearing officers. The process is under way already, and the Government intend to set out how such elements, along with the new IT systems that are needed, will be implemented over the next 18 months or so. However, if some of the matters that have been alluded to mean that the process needs to take a little longer, so be it.
	As I said, we do not underestimate the size of the task in any way. These reforms amount to the most significant change in our approach to migration in 30 or 40 years. They do not conform to the rather fatuous description given by the hon. Member for Ashford, who said that they proved that everything that the Government had done previously was wrong. They will radically transform our migration system, which has not been fit for purpose for as long as 40 years. Successive Governments have cumulatively bolted adaptations on to that system and, although I accept that that has happened since 1997, I assure the House that it went on for a long time before that.
	We are now in a position to implement the managed migration system that this country, collectively, needs. We are ready to have a sane and rational debate about the substantive details of the new system, and about what immigration contributes to the country. The British public will thank us enormously for that.
	It is clear that most hon. Members are ready for the move, but it will be nice when the Conservative Front Bench catches up with everyone else.

Peter Lilley: I hope that the Minister realises that this good and measured debate has been marred only by his poor opening and worse closure. Will he deal with some of the issues involved, rather than merely abusing people? Does he anticipate that the measures being introduced will reduce immigration levels? If so, roughly   how large will that reduction be, in present circumstances?

Tony McNulty: I shall ignore the right hon. Gentleman's preface to his question. In fact, I shall ignore his question too because, if he has not listened to the substance of the debate, it does not deserve a response. The future level of immigration in this country will be the level required by the UK economy to go about its business and grow and develop in the vibrant way in which it has over recent years. That is not ducking the question. The point made about 15,000 or 250,000 is nonsense.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful if you could confirm that my question was in order and it would be normal courtesy to answer it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One thing that the Deputy Speaker does not have to do is get embroiled in the debate itself. Questions may be put and they may be answered in the way that hon. Members and Ministers decide.

Tony McNulty: I was not challenging whether the question was in order in parliamentary terms. I was just explaining—I think quite rightly—that, in the context of all the contributions that I have made thus far and of this evening's debate, the question is redundant. The question goes to an understanding of immigration and what it means for this country—both the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and the hon. Member for Ashford do not understand at all. Their colleagues do. Colleagues on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches do.
	I fully accept that there are still points of detail and substance that we need to work through and I am not undermining those points in any way, shape or form. I repeat the points about low-skilled workers, the administration review, the loss of appeals and the nature of shortages. Poignant points were made about the skills advisory body and how that fits in. There were very germane points that went to the substance of the matter. I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden thinks that this is discourteous, but the point that he just made and the points made by the hon. Member for Ashford are fatuous. I would prefer the two of them to join the substantive, mature debate about migration sooner rather than later. I do not demur from the substance of the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden because he at least has the benefit of being consistent. The hon. Member for Ashford is a classic flip-flop artist whom we have come to know and love.

Martin Horwood: Perhaps as an alternative to calling his opponents fatuous, the Minister might deploy the argument that there are sectors in our economy—for instance, in the NHS and social care—that already vitally depend on immigrant labour and would be in crisis if the Conservative party's policies had been implemented after the last general election.

Tony McNulty: Had the hon. Gentleman bothered turning up to the debate, he might have made a contribution. I will take his comments, and his level of interest, in that context.
	The document is substantive and important and I am grateful that we have had a chance to debate it. I commend not only the Command Paper, but the processes that we have yet to go through to turn it into a substantive document, to the House and urge all hon. Members, from whatever side, who have expressed an interest to maintain that interest over the next 18 months or two years while this system, which the country desperately needs, is put in place. I commend it to the House.

Tony Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION
	 — 
	Council Tax

Martin Horwood: This petition explains my presence in the Chamber. I am presenting a petition on behalf of 290 residents of Cheltenham who fear that the present system of council tax is causing financial hardship to many, especially to pensioners and single householders on low, fixed incomes.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographical or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	To lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICE CLOSURES (ELLESMERE PORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.]

Andrew Miller: I am sure that you have sat in that Chair through a number of debates about the Post Office, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to start the discussion of the closure of Ellesmere Crown post office by saying that I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister for the state of the Post Office today. However, he must listen to the combined voices of all political parties in Ellesmere Port, who, together with the Communication Workers Union, the employees of the Crown post office, and the public, are all disgusted at the cavalier way in which Post Office management have not only ridden roughshod over the views of local people, but have failed in their duty to look after the public purse.
	My hon. Friend will also be aware that at the Labour party north-west regional conference last week a resolution was passed that referred to this sorry debacle and called on the Government to institute a statutory review of the impact of full liberalisation from January 2006, to ensure that Postcomm meets its primary duty to defend the universal service.
	The farce in Ellesmere Port goes back to the summer of 2004, when I returned from a couple of weeks away with my family to discover a pile of letters on my desk from constituents, complaining about the threatened closure of two branch offices, one in Station road and one in Whitby. The Station Road post office, in particular, serves some of the most disadvantaged people in my community.
	I wrote in some detail to the chief executive of Post Office Ltd, Mr. David Mills, and after a series of public meetings and the gathering of information, a very detailed case was submitted. I shall refer to one of the letters in my bundle of documents to focus my hon. Friend's mind on the disingenuous language that the Post Office has used. In a letter dated 6 February this year, a Mr. Partington referred to previous commitments that I "alleged" had been provided to me. If I, as a Member of Parliament, on behalf of my constituents, say to a public servant that I have received some information, he should accept that I have done so. It is an insult to the House to use language like that.
	The letter referred to information that I "alleged" that a previous employee of Post Office Ltd had given me about the future of the post offices. Mr. Partington then sought to disconnect what had happened around Christmas 2005 from more recent events by saying that the former had been part of the Post Office reinvention plan, but the latter were entirely different.
	In 2004, the Post Office failed to get to grips with what happened at Station Road. It was a sad story of dishonesty. Loyal employees were working for an owner who had spent some time in jail. Those loyal employees had served the public well and treated their elderly customers as if they were relatives. They would knock on doors when elderly people did not come to collect their pensions. People of that calibre were dumped by the system. But, of course, that was under the Post Office reinvention scheme.
	In the letters to me at that time, the Post Office, in describing what it now claims to be a different exercise, used the heading "Post Office area plan for Ellesmere Port & Neston". That could mean one of two things. It could mean the area plan for the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston or for the parliamentary constituency. It cannot, under any use of the English language, be reinterpreted a year later to mean a post office covering two super output areas in the poorest parts of the community. It covered the whole community.
	Mr. Dave Barrett announced the closure in a letter I received on Christmas eve 2004, when pensioners were trying to collect their benefit.
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.]

Andrew Miller: I accept that the closure of the post office notified on Christmas eve was due to unfortunate and unforeseen reasons; a robbery at the post office had brought forward the closure. However, Mr. Barrett wrote:
	"Within the scope of the Network Reinvention programme, we have now completed our work in your constituency and no further closure proposals will be considered under this programme in your constituency."
	If I were in the Minister's position I could be pedantic and say, "Ah, that was the Post Office reinvention plan", but I remind the House that the heading on the letter was unambiguous: "Post Office area plan for Ellesmere Port & Neston".
	What were the motives behind that lack of clarity? Laziness, incompetence, deliberate action? I will let the House determine the answer. I only know that one of the most impoverished parts of my constituency was left without an essential service. Post Office management said, "They can go to the Crown office just up the road", referring to elderly and infirm people in an area with the lowest car ownership in the sub-region.
	The letter of 23 December 2004 said that there would be no further closures, yet a year later the Post Office came back for another bite at the cherry and announced that the Crown office would be absorbed in an Asda store. The proposal was to halve the counter space and the resources for post office services in the town centre. I was told that the Post Office had identified financial losses at the Crown office, but that information was not shared with me.
	I have no complaint about Asda, but I object to being insulted by the deviousness of Post Office management. I do not mind that personally, as in this place one gets used to being insulted by experts, but Members are entitled to expect at least some deference from a public body towards our constituents. No such thing has come from the Post Office.
	My early-day motion 1446 states:
	"That this House condemns the manner in which the Post Office has failed to engage in meaningful consultations with either staff or public about the closure of Ellesmere Port Crown Office; and calls upon the Government, as shareholders, to instruct the Post Office management to withdraw its current proposal, to share with stakeholders the financial facts and ensure that if it demonstrates a position that is commercially recoverable that time is allowed to enable a proper recovery programme to be instituted."
	That is not an unreasonable request from a Member of Parliament, yet it was wholly ignored. The Post Office made no comment on it, apart from an indirect one to which I shall refer.
	A letter of 6 February set out in four or five pages the logic behind the Post Office's decision to close. I was assured that there would be
	"longer opening hours . . . a brand new, modern Post Office branch . . . flat, level access . . . automatic entrance doors . . . a low-level writing desk . . . car parking facilities nearby . . . and . . . a bright, modern, customer friendly retail environment within which to shop".
	Interestingly, that letter referred to events that occurred just yesterday—the axe fell finally, the closure happened and the new system came into force.
	All hon. Members have constituents who are prolific letter writers. I bet that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could name a handful of people in your own constituency who are the most prolific letter writers, as could every other hon. Member. One such in my constituency is a gentleman called Mr. Ellams, who writes to me on all sorts of issues, and he would not be offended if I say that I find myself in disagreement with him on nine out of 10 of them. However, he pointed out something extremely useful yesterday, and the Minister ought to be aware of it, bearing in mind the commitments that the Post Office has given to me in writing, which the Minister has seen. Mr. Ellams says that some of the counters were closed and that queues were coming out of the door—at a post office that was supposed to provide a better service for my constituents. Frankly, that is what I expected, because I do not believe that the provision for either the transition into the Asda operation or the final scale of the Asda operation will be adequate to meet my constituents' needs.
	One of the issues that I raised in the early-day motion and in the subsequent correspondence with the Post Office was the financial basis on which the decision was taken. At a public meeting—at which the Post Office was at least represented, to be fair to two very junior members of its staff—a member of the public asked a question, doubting, as I do, the veracity of the financial information that was presented to us. We were simply told that the Crown post office in Ellesmere Port was making a loss. That may be the case, but the point was that a financial year had not been completed since the closure of the two sub-post offices, so no stable pattern worth a light could be analysed. No sensible business financial planning is based on the kind of data that could have been drawn together in that time.
	What made me particularly angry was that, when I eventually pressed the Post Office about the financial basis on which the information was taken, Julia Marwood wrote me a letter, dated 20 February, in which she said:
	"Turning to the financial case behind our decision to change the way in which we manage Ellesmere Port Post Office branch, I fully appreciate it would give a clearer picture if we could simply publish the financial information and data relating to any individual branch."
	I asked the Post Office not to publish that information, but to make it available to me, as a Member of Parliament. The letter continues:
	"However we are not obliged, or indeed, at liberty to disclose this confidential information with any third party due to commercial confidentiality."
	I have a little difficulty with that. I had understood that we taxpayers owned the Post Office. Of course, if some information is commercially sensitive, I would accept that. I deal with other companies with a similar structure. For example, I regularly deal with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, which shares with me huge amounts of information. It provides it to me in confidence as a Member of Parliament with a local constituency interest. Why cannot the Post Office do exactly the same? Does it think that some smart Alec Member of Parliament might come up with a better idea because they have more knowledge of the locality that they represent than the people sitting miles away in their ivory towers in the Post Office branch change section as it is now called? It would not be unreasonable for the House to say to the Post Office, "In these circumstances, we expect you to share information with Members of Parliament."
	The language gets even more confusing. In November 2005 when the Post Office decided that the Crown office was to close, it wrote a nice, lengthy and detailed letter to me. It says:
	"As an organisation committed to delivering the best possible service"—
	tell that to my constituents—
	"we want to do our best to meet our customers' requirements and maintain continued access to our branch network."
	No wonder we are confused, because the Post Office is confused. It confuses branch with Crown offices, but that is its choice. The letter continues:
	"Whilst the decision to change the management of the Ellesmere Port Post Office branch to Asda Store Ltd is not, in itself, subject to public consultation, we are keen to seek feedback".
	In writing to me, the Post Office says that the matter is not subject to public consultation.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister treats his correspondence seriously. In a letter he wrote to me on 22 January this year, he says:
	"No decisions will be taken on individual closures until after public consultation has been completed."
	Again, there is an anomaly between the position adopted by the Post Office management in its discussions with Members of Parliament and what it is saying to my hon. Friend. I do not believe for a minute that he invented that sentence without believing that the Post Office should have consulted representatives in the constituency.
	The Post Office can rescue the situation and the operation in my constituency can be made more profitable. However, given the decision on the Station Road branch affected one of the most disadvantaged wards in the country let alone my area, the fact that the Post Office is prepared to ride roughshod over people such as the folk in the Westminster ward in Ellesmere Port and to use disingenuous language in correspondence with a Member of Parliament and the fact that there has been no attempt to resolve the problem by a process of examination, negotiation and studies as to whether alternative solutions can be found, I despair for the future of the Post Office. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend and his colleagues will get hold of a few people very tightly and suggest to them that because the Post Office is a public entity—it should remain so—it should act with greater consideration towards the people whom Members of the House seek to represent. When ideas come forward about alternative ways forward, it should respond positively to them.

Barry Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) on securing the debate. He has been absolutely assiduous in voicing concerns about recent changes to the local provision of post office services in Ellesmere Port on behalf of his constituents. I can honestly say that over the course of the past four or five weeks, I have not had a single refreshment in the House of Commons Tea Room without my hon. Friend sitting beside me to discuss these matters. Indeed, I was almost at the point of being able to deliver his entire speech to the House myself without notes. However, in saying that, I do not wish in any way to undermine the excellent work that he has done to represent his constituents' interests to the Government.
	My hon. Friend spelled out clearly and fully his views and concerns about the changes that are planned by Post Office Ltd in the coming months to post office services in the Ellesmere Port town centre. The future of the post office network is relevant to every Member of the House. We all share concerns about the future provision of postal services in our constituencies. We all also recognise, as I know that my hon. Friend does, that until 1999 and the advent of the action taken by the Government, there had been underinvestment in the business for decades. Most of all, we know that advances in technology, greater mobility and changes in constituents' shopping and financial habits have resulted in a growing proportion of people simply not using post offices in the way in which they did in the past. For many reasons, custom across the network has sharply reduced, which has created a spiral of decline in certain areas.
	If the post office network is to survive and thrive in the longer term, it needs to change significantly. The Government want a post office network that can prosper on the basis of the needs of today and the future, not those of 20 or 30 years ago. However, in doing so, we also have to face up to present reality. The Government are providing £150 million a year to support the rural network and will continue to do so until 2008—I am delighted to say that state aid clearance came through from the European Union only a couple of weeks ago.
	May I correct my hon. Friend on a point about the directly managed Crown offices? He implied that his correspondent from the Post Office had been mistaken in calling them branches. In fact, the correspondent was entirely correct because the proper name for them is directly managed branches, although we colloquially retain the name Crown offices.
	The Crown offices and the deprived urban area network are also losing substantial amounts. Collectively, some 500 directly managed offices have been losing £70 million a year. Clearly the status quo is not sustainable in such circumstances. Several important steps to restructure and revitalise the Post Office have already been taken, but the future of the network rightly remains an issue of national debate. It is clear that there are still considerable challenges to be faced.
	The starting point for the Government's policy for the post office network is the performance and innovation unit report "Modernising the Post Office Network". The Prime Minister commissioned that report in 1999, because it had become clear that, following decades of decline and underinvestment, dramatic action was necessary to get the business on track and to secure its long-term future. We set about introducing policies that would help to achieve that, which previous Governments had totally failed to do.
	The PIU report showed very starkly that the post office network had not kept pace with the changing needs of its customers. Too many post offices had become dingy and shabby through lack of investment and were losing business. The report was widely welcomed as squaring up honestly to the challenges facing the network, and the Government accepted and implemented all 24 of its recommendations.
	It is important to remember that the post office network has been contracting since the 1960s. Between 1979 and 1997, Conservative Governments presided over 3,500 closures, and in all that time they produced not a single policy on how to ensure that the network could continue to remain relevant into the 21st century. There have been reductions in post office usage for all sorts of reasons, and the absence of investment by the previous Government is significant, but above all changes in lifestyle and habits mean that a large proportion of our constituents do not use the Post Office as much as they used to and custom has sharply reduced. That is not a matter of the Government or some unseen market force acting against the interests of post offices and their customers; it is about ordinary people—our constituents—making personal choices.
	Research commissioned by Postcomm, the regulator for postal services, has also noted that in other countries people are also increasingly accessing services electronically, over the telephone and through the internet. In response, most countries have been remodelling their networks, usually by closing the smallest or least profitable offices and converting directly run offices to agency offices. In Germany, for instance, the number of post office branches has been reduced by 17,000 offices, which is more than the entire UK network of 14,500 offices. In Britain, other networks, such as those of the retail banks have been scaled back too. Like them, the post office network needs to adapt to changes in people's preferences and new ways of doing business. Those external changes pose big challenges to the network of post offices, which must be addressed, not ducked.
	We must recognise that 96 per cent. of the nation's post offices are run by sub-postmasters, who are private business people who have invested not only their own money into their businesses, but a great amount of care and effort to help the post office network achieve its highly regarded status. My hon. Friend has said that we, the taxpayer, own the Post Office. I must inform him that we, the taxpayer, own Post Office Ltd, but we do not own the 14,500 sub-post offices up and down the country, which are private businesses that enter into commercial contracts with the Post Office. The reason why it is not possible for the Post Office to make available commercially confidential figures about the viability of those offices is because it would prejudice the capacity of that private business person to sell their business in due course.

Andrew Miller: If the Minister had listened to me, he would have heard me talk about Station Road, which was a sub-post office that had suffered under mismanagement by the previous owner. This debate is about the closure of the Crown office, and only the Post Office has a commercial interest in its viability.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend has referred to separate post offices today—he has referred to the Crown office, and he has also referred to the Station Road office. I am seeking to explain that there are conditions of commercial confidentiality, because the capacity of any sub-postmaster in Ellesmere Port to run their business viably and to be in a position to sell it on in future depends to some extent on commercial confidentiality between themselves and the Post Office.

Andrew Miller: Is my hon. Friend saying that Members of Parliament should not be entrusted in confidence with such information?

Barry Gardiner: Neither my hon. Friend nor I would expect to be made privy to information relating to the commercial viability of any private business in our constituency. We must therefore agree to part company on the matter.
	Turning to the substance of my hon. Friend's argument, I have said that we must recognise that 96 per cent. of the nation's post offices are run by sub-postmasters. However, as there is declining profitability in the network as a whole, the viability of many individual offices has taken a severe knock. Decisive action in the form of the urban reinvention programme was taken to restructure a sector of the network where there was extensive over-provision with the aim of better matching supply to demand and of creating the viability necessary for a sustainable network for the future. That is why we backed Post Office Ltd's plans for managed restructuring of the urban network, which resulted in almost 2,500 office closures while ensuring that, nationally, 99.3 per cent. of people in urban areas, including Ellesmere Port, still live within a mile of their nearest post office.
	We now need to address the issues facing the loss-making sectors of the network that are no longer financially sustainable in their present form. It is no longer clear that the needs of customers are best served by the traditional costly and inflexible network structure, so we must find innovative and more cost-effective ways of delivering post office services. My hon. Friend diligently monitors the issues in his constituency, as he has made very clear tonight. He took a keen interest in the urban reinvention programme, probing and challenging Post Office Ltd's area plan proposals for Ellesmere Port and Neston. Ultimately, as part of that programme, two of the 17 sub-post offices in the constituency closed. I accept that he had particular concerns about force majeure events, including the attempted burglary of the Station Road sub-post office, which led to its closure ahead of schedule just before Christmas 2004.
	I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that the Station Road closure was, indeed, a voluntary closure under the urban reinvention programme. A former sub-postmaster volunteered for closure at the same time as he sold the premises. He was not the post office manager at the time—indeed, he had to secure a tenant, because he could not manage the premises—but the closure was voluntary, as is the case for every single one of the 2,500 closures under the urban reinvention scheme. There was therefore a voluntary closure of Station Road by a former sub-postmaster who was selling the premises. It was not something that was done by Post Office Ltd or by the Government to the people in the area around Station Road—the closure was volunteered by the former sub-postmaster.
	More recently, my hon. Friend challenged Post Office Ltd's plans for changes in service provision in Ellesmere Port, setting out his concerns in an early-day motion tabled on 23 January. As he has explained, on 6 February 2006, Post Office Ltd confirmed its intention to merge the operations of the existing directly managed office in Marina walk and the existing Market Square branch in Asda into the new Asda Market Square store when rebuilding work is complete. In the interim, Asda will take over the management and operation of the Marina Walk office while the existing Asda Market Square office will close as the premises are to be demolished to enable redevelopment of the site.
	Before addressing specific details raised by my hon. Friend, there are some key points of general principle that it would be helpful to clarify. First, although the urban reinvention programme achieved its aim of better aligning post office service capacity with current levels of demand in urban areas, it was never envisaged that that would preclude further changes to the urban network as the need or opportunity arose. Secondly, the plans for Ellesmere Port relate to the combined results of the impending demolition of the present Market Square office premises—
	The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.